 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. State2/4/1999
on that Taylor's reasons to strike these three jurors were pretextual.
. This Court has stated in Hatten v. State, 628 So. 2d 294, 299 (Miss. 1993), that a trial court's decision to accept or reject an explanation as race-neutral will be reversed only where it appears "clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence." In Chisolm v. State, 529 So. 2d 630, 633 (Miss. 1988), this Court stated, "So long as the trial court applies the correct legal standard, we will not overturn a finding of fact made by a trial Judge unless it is clearly erroneous." (quoting Neil v. State, 451 So. 2d 743, 753 (Miss. 1984), see also, Simon v. State, 679 So. 2d 617, 621-22 (Miss. 1996). In Batson, the Supreme Court stated, " he trial Judge's finding in the context under consideration here largely will turn on evaluation of credibility, a reveiwing court should ordinarily give those findings great deference." Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 98 n.21 (1986).
. In the case at bar, the trial Judge's analysis of the reasons tendered is not be clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Taylor's reasons for striking the three jurors appear to be pretextual. Thus the trial Judge was correct to refuse to accept the reasons tendered by Taylor. The trial court should be affirmed.
. I respectfully Dissent.
ROBERTS AND MILLS, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION.
|