Ratliff v. State

WELLS, Justice.

We have for review a decision certifying the following question certified to be of great public importance:

WHEN A LITIGANT OBJECTS THAT AN OPPOSING PARTY SEEKS TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE FOR CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE REASONS, WHO *1184HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE (OR DISPROVE) FACTS ON WHICH THE OBJECTOR RELIES?

Ratliff v. State, 666 So.2d 1008, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently clarified the guidelines for trial courts to use when confronting race-based objections to peremptory challenges. See Melbourne v. State, 679…