Ex parte Branch
Citation | 526 So.2d 609 |
Parties | Ex parte Preston BRANCH. (In Re Preston Branch v. State of Alabama). 86-500. |
Decision Date | 18 September 1987 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
L. Dan Turberville, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen. and Beth Slate Poe, William D. Little, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Bryan E. Morgan, Executive Director, Alabama Dist. Attys. Ass'n, amicus curiae on behalf of district attorneys in State of Ala.
This petition for certiorari presents a case of first impression involving the State's use of its peremptory challenges to strike 6 of 7 blacks from the jury venire. The specific question presented is whether the State's explanations of the reasons for its exercise of the challenges were racially "neutral." In determining this question, we must review, in detail, the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and our holding Because the Supreme Court of the United States did not "formulate particular procedures to be followed," and did not "instruct the courts how best to implement [the Batson ] holding," 1 and because the trial judge, in this case, did not have the benefit of any guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Batson, or by this Court in the case of Jackson, we do not, at this time, affirm or reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, but we remand the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals, with directions to remand it to the trial court for a new determination of the issue raised by the petitioner, based upon the guidelines we delineate in this opinion, and based upon the rule of law contained in Jackson.
in Ex parte Jackson, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986).
The facts of this case are very ably set out in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and while we could make reference to that opinion for the statement of facts, we believe that for a better presentation of the issue in this case, we should, and do, recite the facts, as found by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Branch v. State, 526 So.2d 605 (Ala.Crim.App.1986):
addition, the court required the prosecutors to make note of their reasons for their strikes and, if a conviction resulted from the trial, Branch's contention would be resolved in a motion for new trial. Defense counsel made no objection to this procedural arrangement.
Because of our in-depth treatment of this issue, we quote additional portions of the record, which contains a transcript of what occurred relating to the peremptory challenge issue:
[from Batson ].... I think that is very instructive.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
...480, 489 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (quoting Batson, supra at 94, 106 S.Ct. 1712 ), aff'd, 24 So. 3d 540 (Ala. 2009). In Ex parte Branch, 526 So. 2d 609, 622-23 (Ala. 1987), the Alabama Supreme Court discussed a number of relevant factors that can be used to establish a prima facie case of raci......
-
Petersen v. State
...burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.’ Ex parte Brooks, 695 So. 2d 184, 190 (Ala. 1997) (citing Ex parte Branch, 526 So. 2d 609, 622 (Ala. 1987) ). ‘A defendant makes out a prima facie case of discriminatory jury selection by "the totality of the relevant facts" surro......
-
United States v. Alabama
...excessive monitoring is disparate treatment of wrongdoers, not merely getting caught doing wrong.”) (emphasis added); Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609, 623 (Ala.1987)(Among the factors relevant to consideration of a Batson challenge include: “ Disparate treatment of members of the jury venire......
-
Allen v. State
...In determining whether gender discrimination is present, the trial judge shall apply the basic mechanics of Batson and Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987): The challenging party, here the appellant, has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of gender discrimination on the part......
-
Batson Remedies
...two out of six challenged jurors). 40. See, e.g. , State v. Franklin , 456 S.E.2d 357, 359–60 (S.C. 1995). 41. See Ex parte Branch, 526 So. 2d 609, 624–25 (Ala. 1987). 42. This problem could be avoided by having peremptory challenges exercised outside of the presence of the jury, but not al......