Scheuing v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
1ConcurrenceWindom, Presiding Judge
I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm Jesse Earl Scheuing’s convictions and sentences. I write specially to address why I believe that claims raised under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), or J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994), must be raised first at trial.
*299In his special writing in Ex parte Floyd, [Ms. 1080107, Sept. 28, 2012] — So.3d -(Ala.2012), Justice Murdock listed the reasons why the three-step evidentiary inquiry prescribed by Batson “is not an inquiry that can be initiated on appeal as a result of a…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Wainwright v. WittSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Hernandez v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Arnett v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.