Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-Davis-v-Fisk-Electric-Co-Tex-2008-Concurrence-by-Brister-jury-selection-race-as-factor.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:57:35+00:00

Document:
Court misses that opportunity, I concur only in the judgment.
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett.
Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Medina joined as to Part III.
Justice Brister, joined by Justice Medina as to Part III, concurring.
reaching effects, including use in future trials.
disregarding his explanations on procedural grounds is simply too one-sided.
opportunity to accuse an opponent of discrimination and get a new trial if the first one turns out badly.
I. “Guilty” or “Not Proven”?
favored punitive damages. But two years after this trial occurred, the Supreme Court held in Snyder v.
findings do not comply with the new rule.
absence of an express trial court finding.
established but the latter is not. Davis is entitled to a new trial because Fisk did not carry its burden.
But I would not be so certain that we know defense counsel’s true motives.
both exalt appellate-level clarity over trial-level reality.
The United States Supreme Court has never imposed these restrictions. For example, in Rice v.
Court has never said so.
the court of appeals held) established as a matter of law.
Counsel: Juror No. 7, I notice that you are yawning. Why is that?
Juror No. 7: I wasn’t yawning.
Counsel: Judge, I want the record to reflect that Juror No. 7 was yawning, even though he denies it.
Opposing Counsel: No he was not.
Counsel: Yes he was. Judge, may I have a ruling?
though you have thoroughly embarrassed him.
should say so directly rather than imposing an impractical test that does so indirectly.
or eliminate discrimination and suspicion is to reduce or eliminate these strikes.
second trial if they lose the first one.
peremptory strikes were absolutely necessary for a fair and impartial jury. But they are not.
limited part of the community.
cannot keep the rest from rendering a verdict.
* 1,364 cases from Texas.
inferred from “all relevant circumstances” including “look[ing] beyond the case at hand”).
 See U.S. Census Bureau, State & County Quickfacts, available at http://quickfacts. census.
Hispanic/Latino 38.2%, White non-Hispanic 36.9%, Black 19.0%, Asian 5.4%).
the particular venire might give rise to an inference of discrimination.”).
required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”) (quoting Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev.
Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264-65 (1977)).
come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.”); see also Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 252.
 Snyder v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, ___ (2008).
victim of discrimination provided a neutral reason for a strike.
 546 U.S. 333, 339 (2006).
 ___ U.S. ___, ___ (2008).
 827 S.W.2d 860, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
 Thieleman v. State, 187 S.W.3d 455, 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
drawn from the operations of chance.”).
 Cortez ex rel. Estate of Puentes v. HCCI-San Antonio, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 87, 90 (Tex. 2005).
blacks in jury selection provided that they hold that discrimination to an ‘acceptable’ level.”).
 See id. at 119 (Burger, C.J., dissenting).
jury law was to avoid the evils resulting from the summoning of juries by sheriffs . . . .”).
Occupational Exemptions: The Impairment of the “Fair Cross-Section of the Community”, 69 S. Cal. L. Rev.
 See Tex. Gov’t Code § 62.004.
 See Tex. Gov’t Code § 62.105.
two sides can remove half of the eligible jurors.
challenges] should not be minimized.”).
Texas are provided solely by rules of civil procedure).
n of Webster County, W. Va., 488 U.S. 336, 344 (1989); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 207 (1962).
 See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 622 (1991).
England 346 (1769)); Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219 (1965) (same).
 Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 425 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 223, 232, 233.
by reason of temperament or prior experience to look with disfavor upon his side of the case”); see also J.E.B.
perceived interests . . . .”).
An Empirical Study, 38 S. Cal. L. Rev. 503, 505-06 (1965).
have the right to an impartial jury, not a favorable one.”).

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 62
 § 62
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.