Court Opinion

ID: 9784634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:50:08.809326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:57.237869
License: Public Domain

GUIDRY, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part.
U concur in the majority opinion regarding the “reverse Batson” challenge. The race neutral reasons articulated by defense counsel for striking the nine challenged jurors were adequate. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995).
I dissent from the discussion concerning the trial court’s choice of remedy. I believe that defense counsel collaboration during voir dire might warrant the type of peremptory challenge limitations imposed by the trial court in this case. However, any discussion of this issue is dicta, since our determination on the reverse Batson issue requires reversal of the convictions and remand for a new trial.