Court Opinion

ID: 9762192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:15:26.627085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:31.723839
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
On June 28, 1971, the United States Supreme Court ordered:
“. . . Judgment, insofar as it imposes the death sentence, reversed and case remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas for further proceedings. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 89 S.Ct. 1138, 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969); and Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262, 90 S.Ct. 1578, 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970). . . .”
See, Harris v. Texas, 403 U.S. 947, 91 S.Ct. 2291, 29 L.Ed.2d 859 (1971).
In affirming this conviction on original appeal in 457 S.W.2d 903, this court carefully considered all of the authorities cited *286by the Supreme Court in disposing of appellant’s contention that the mandate of Witherspoon was violated in the selection of jurors. Without any hint as to just how this court may have misinterpreted or misapplied these authorities, the death penalty was set aside. Such action, in this writer’s opinion, is a waste of judicial time. We are left to speculate how these authorities are to be applied in the future.
I am tempted to urge the court to reaffirm the judgment with the sincere hope that next time the Supreme Court will give us necessary guidelines. Upon consideration of the large number of cases from this and other states wherein the death penalty was set aside by the Supreme Court on the same date without any more enlightenment than given in this cause, I am convinced that a reaffirmance would only delay the possible re-trial of this appellant without any real prospect of achieving the desired result.
Therefore, I concur in the result reached.