Court Opinion

ID: 9476042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:46:29.890173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:06.240977
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the remand.
This separate concurrence is prompted by the language of the majority’s directions to the district court on remand. As I explained more fully in my separate concurrence to United States v. George Wilson, 816 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir.1987), I believe this language contains an internal inconsistency. In my view the remand in this case might read as follows:
If the District Court finds that the government’s motivation for its peremptory challenges was constitutionally improper, it shall grant [Ricky Davis] a new trial. If, on the other hand, it finds that the government’s motivation was not constitutionally improper, it shall reinstate the conviction, and appellant will be at liberty to file a fresh notice of appeal to seek review of the District Court’s adverse finding.1
I here adopt the views I expressed in my separate opinion in United States v. George Wilson.

. This precise language comes from United States v. Jimmie L. Wilson, 815 F.2d 52 (8th Cir.1987).