Commonwealth v. Hill
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
KELLY, J.:
¶ 1 Appellant, John Hill, asks us to determine whether a trial court is required, under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), to recall and seat venirepersons who have been excused through the use of peremptory challenges. We hold that a trial court has the discretion to fashion a remedy for properly sustained Batson objections, which, depending on the circumstances of the case, may involve calling additional jurors to the venire, granting additional challenges, seating the challenged jurors; or beginning a new jury selection. Accordingly, we affirm.
¶…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Powers v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Commonwealth v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. Abu-JamalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Holloway v. HornCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
- Holloway v. HornCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
- Commonwealth v. SaundersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Com. v. Murray, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
- State v. Amir Andrews (069594)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2013
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.