Court Opinion

ID: 9695221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:12:39.229722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:10.161256
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Judge,
concurring:
I join in the majority opinion. I note that I find this case distinguishable from that presented in Commonwealth v. McKendrick, 356 Pa.Super. 64, 514 A.2d 144 (1987) (per Olszewski, J.; McEwen, J., joining; Kelly, J., dissenting), in that appellant has not alleged (and the record does not disclose) that the peremptory challenges were utilized in a manner and setting which reasonably gives rise to an inference that discriminatory animus, rather than legitimate (non-discriminatory) trial tactics, motivated the use of peremptory challenges.