Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Urrea

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided May 30, 2017No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0416Published

1DissentMiller, Judge

¶ 39 I agree with my colleagues that a trial court has broad discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy for a Batson violation, and we will not disturb its ruling absent an abuse of discretion. I also agree that imposing either of the two remedies the Supreme Court mentioned in Batson is not an abuse of discretion. Those two remedies are: (1) “disc-harg[ing] the venire and seleet[ing] a new jury from a panel not previously associated with the case,” or (2) “disallow[ing] the discriminatory challenges and resum[ing] selection with the improperly challenged jurors reinstated on the venire.”…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Hernandez v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Powers v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API