 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chambers v. State1/27/2004
l. Moreover, when these two jurors were accepted, the trial court had already ruled earlier that a prima facie case had been established that the State was using its peremptory challenges in violation of Batson .
. The majority also observes that neither of the Caucasian alternates had family members who had pending charges or were presently involved in the drug business. The inference here is that all the African American jurors who were struck had family members with pending drug charges or were presently involved in the drug business. The record does not support this inference. First, there were only two African American jurors, jurors numbers six and sixteen, who allegedly had a friend or family member with pending drug charges. Jurors numbers twenty-one and twenty-four were in the exact same posture as were jurors numbers twenty, twenty-five, and twenty-seven.
. To find that the State's peremptory strikes of jurors numbers twenty-one and twenty-four were not pretextual is to find that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of race between two sets of jurors, one African American and the other Caucasian, as long as law enforcement vouches for the fairness of the Caucasian set. I do not believe Batson permits such result. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
KING, P.J., JOINS THIS SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
|