Summary
noting that "the majority of this Court refuses to allow Purkett v. Elem to control Alabama's peremptory challenge procedure" and citing Ex parte Bruner, supra
Summary of this case from Johnson v. StateOpinion
1951331.
September 13, 1996.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals (Washington Circuit Court, CC-95-006; Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-94-1788); J. Lee McPhearson, Judge.
C. Robert Montgomery, Chatom, for Petitioner.
No brief filed for Respondent.
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
HOOPER, C.J., and ALMON and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
HOUSTON, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
I believe in all parties' right to the peremptory challenge, and I have struggled to try to preserve that right and comply with Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The United States Supreme Court in Purkett v. Elem, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995), encouraged me in my hope that the peremptory challenge would survive. However, the majority of this Court refuses to allow Purkett v. Elem to control Alabama's peremptory challenge procedure. Ex parte Bruner, 681 So.2d 173 (Ala. 1996). I do not see how the peremptory challenge can permanently endure with litigants having the right to peremptorily challenge some jurors but not other jurors. Do all potential jurors not have an equal right to serve as jurors regardless of race or gender?