Court Opinion

ID: 9544386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:55:12.974315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:54.549297
License: Public Domain

RABINO WITZ, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached in the case at bar and agree with the court’s treatment and disposition of all issues raised in this appeal. Nevertheless, I consider it appropriate to note my concern regarding the issue going to the challenge for cause to prospective jurors on the basis of possible racial prejudice stemming from membership in the Elks and Moose Lodges — organizations which subscribe to Caucasian-only criteria. In my view, the judiciary in a multi-racial jurisdiction, such as Alaska, must be peculiarly sensitive to racial discrimination. The viability of Alaska’s judicial system in general, and the use of juries in civil litigation in particular is dependent upon popular acceptance of such institutions.
In order to assure racial impartiality in our decision-making processes and to maximize the confidence of persons belonging to minority groups who come in contact with Alaska’s judicial system, I believe the more preferable course for the trial judge to have followed in this case would have been to allow appellants additional peremptory challenges.1 For here the record discloses that of the twenty-two prospective' jurors questioned at one of the trials, four were members of the Elks or Moose Lodges.

. Rule 47(d) of Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:
. . . A juror peremptorily chal-
lenged is excused without cause. Each party may challenge peremptorily 3 jurors. .
Rule 94 of Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
These rules are designed, to facilitate business and advance justice. They may be relaxed or dispensed with by the court in any case where it shall be manifest to the court that a strict adherence to them will work injustice.