State v. Lockett

I respectfully dissent.

Defendant is a persistent offender, having been previously convicted of murder and burglary. The evidence of his guilt as to the present charge is overwhelming. The present case fulfills Chief Justice Burger’s prediction that the retroactive application of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (Burger, J., dissenting), will “lead to a whole host of problems, if not utter chaos.” Such problems and chaos must be endured even though the rule announced in Batson is not designed to avert the danger of convicting an innocent man. Id. 106 S.Ct.…