Court Opinion

ID: 9496915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:39:02.640827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:53.544472
License: Public Domain

ORDER
The opinion filed November 7, 2003 is AMENDED as follows:
1. Page-, line 14: delete “and 019” and change “Jurors” to “Juror.”
2. Footnote 12, line 2: after “challenge” insert “because the prosecutor labeled Juror 019 ‘young’ even *670though Juror 019 was a grandmother.”
3. Delete the first full paragraph on page-.
4. Delete “her pretextual justifications for dismissing Juror 019,” on line 2-3 of the last paragraph on page
5. The first full sentence on page-should be amended to read: “The record also shows that one of her justifications was patently discriminatory (gender), while one of her justifications for dismissing Juror 019 was contrary to the record (age).”
6. Footnote 15, lines 16-17: change “three reasons were not applied to comparably similar jurors who were not struck” to “one reason was not applied to a comparably similar juror who was not struck.”
7. Delete the following from page 15922: “, while her justification based on Juror 019’s daughter’s past cocaine addiction was pretextual given that a white juror (Juror 030) with comparably similar characteristics was permitted to serve on the jury.”
8. Page-, line 19: change “Jurors” to “Juror” and delete “and 019”.
With these amendments, the panel majority has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Hall voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing, and recommended granting the petition for rehearing en banc.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.