Ex parte Bird
Decision Date | 06 December 1991 |
Citation | Ex parte Bird, 594 So.2d 676 (Ala. 1991) |
Parties | Ex parte Terry BIRD. (Re Terry Bird v. State of Alabama). Ex parte Jacob WARNER. (Re Jacob Warner v. State of Alabama). 89-1061, 89-1062. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jeffery C. Duffey, Montgomery, for petitionerTerry Bird.
Richard D. Shinbaum of Shinbaum, Thiemonge & Howell, Montgomery, for petitionerJacob Warner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Beth Slate Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Frances H. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent on rehearing.
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
The opinion of June 14, 1991, is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.
Terry Bird and Jacob Warner appealed convictions of capital murder.The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.SeeBird v. State, [Ms. 3 Div. 938, Feb. 23, 1990]594 So.2d 644(Ala.Cr.App.1990), andWarner v. State, [Ms. 3 Div. 945, Feb. 23, 1990]594 So.2d 664(Ala.Cr.App.1990).This Court granted certiorari review to consider whether the defendants were denied their rights to a fair and impartial trial by the prosecution's use of peremptory strikes to eliminate black veniremembers from the jury, and whether Bird, a white defendant, has standing to challenge the prosecution's use of peremptory strikes.We answer both questions in the affirmative, and we reverse.
In the trial of these defendants' consolidated cases, the chief deputy district attorney for Montgomery County, Ellen Brooks, and Deputy District AttorneyBruce Maddox used 17 of their 20 peremptory strikes to eliminate 17 of the 19 black veniremembers.The defendant struck 1, thus leaving only 1 black veniremember to serve on the jury.Before the jury was sworn, both defendants moved to quash the jury panel on the ground that the State's use of its peremptory strikes violated the principles expressed in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69(1986), which principles this Court had adopted in Ex parte Jackson, 516 So.2d 768(Ala.1986), and had grounded on state law, including Ala. Const., art. I, §§ 1,6, and22.Ellen Brooks, under direct examination by Mr. Maddox, then proceeded to make a showing for the record as to the reasons for her strikes.A summary of her explanations appears in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Warner v. State, supra.For convenience, the pertinent reasons are summarized below:
The trial judge, after cross-examination of Ms. Brooks by defense counsel, expressed some concern over the challenges of Veniremembers 26 and 45.Ultimately, however, he concluded that to grant the defendants' motion to quash the jury panel placed "too great of a burden on the State in explaining its reasons" for its challenges.He, therefore, denied the motion on the grounds that the prosecution's explanations were sufficiently race-neutral and that Bird lacked standing to challenge the exclusion of black veniremembers.
We take this opportunity to underscore the rule and policies that we announced in JacksonandEx parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609(Ala.1987).In doing so, we examine the State's explanations for its strikes in light of our rule regarding the defendant's burden of production in presenting a prima facie case--especially as it is affected by the interplay of the various factors that we enumerated in Branch.In Branch, we explained:
Ex parte...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Allen v. State
...is also "especially subject to abuse because of [its] insusceptibility to an objective evaluation by the trial judge." Ex parte Bird, 594 So.2d 676, 685 (Ala.1991). In contrast, more specific concerns regarding the veniremember's appearance may be deemed sufficient. For example, the fact th......
-
Arthur v. State
...574 So.2d 1001, 1003 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). See also Bird v. State, 594 So.2d 644, 648 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), reversed on other grounds, 594 So.2d 676 (Ala.1991). "Furthermore, any objection to an expert witness on the ground that he or she lacks knowledge goes to the weight rather than to the admi......
-
State v. Rigual
...that person. We join two other state Supreme Courts that follow the South Carolina rule that have concluded the same. See Ex parte Bird, 594 So.2d 676, 687 (Ala. 1991) (trial judges must hold Batson hearing upon any party's request whenever other party exercises peremptory challenges to rem......
-
Sockwell v. State
...in determining whether the prosecutor's reasons were sufficient to rebut the presumption of racial discrimination. Ex parte Bird, 594 So.2d 676, 680 (Ala.1991). In this case, defense counsel cited the number of the prosecutor's peremptory challenges against black veniremembers and the prose......