FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE

NEWS RELEASE # 057

FROM: CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

 

On the 21st day of September, 2007, the following action was taken by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the cases listed below:

WRIT APPLICATIONS DENIED:

2007-KD-1735 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. EDWARD HARRIS (Parish of Jefferson)
CALOGERO, C.J., concurs in the denial of the writ application and assigns reasons.
KIMBALL, J., concurring in the denial of the writ application. The defendant fails to suggest any reason why the state should be prohibited from exercising its statutory right to peremptory challenges under La.C.Cr.P. art. 799. There is no basis to suggest that a constitutional violation will occur in the selection of a jury when voir dire has not yet commenced. The defendant does nothing to show that the protections of Batson and La.C.Cr.P. art. 795C are ineffective in protecting his rights against discriminatory peremptory challenges on the basis of race.
JOHNSON, J., concurs in the denial of the writ and assigns reasons.
TRAYLOR, J., concurring in the denial of the writ application. The defendant fails to suggest any reason why the state should be prohibited from exercising its statutory right to peremptory challenges under La.C.Cr.P. art. 799. There is no basis to suggest that a constitutional violation will occur in the selection of a jury when voir dire has not yet commenced. The defendant does nothing to show that the protections of Batson and La.C.Cr.P. art. 795C are ineffective in protecting his rights against discriminatory peremptory challenges on the basis of race. Additional concurring reasons: The Chief Justice appears to be in favor of allowing a pre-trial hearing to determine whether the judge and prosecutor should be required to follow well-established law.
KNOLL, J., concurring in the denial of the writ application. The defendant fails to suggest any reason why the state should be prohibited from exercising its statutory right to peremptory challenges under La.C.Cr.P. art. 799. There is no basis to suggest that a constitutional violation will occur in the selection of a jury when voir dire has not yet commenced. The defendant does nothing to show that the protections of Batson and La.C.Cr.P. art. 795C are ineffective in protecting his rights against discriminatory peremptory challenges on the basis of race.

2007-CC-1882 JESSICA NEILL v. FORD MOTOR CO. AND MID CITY MOTORS, INC. D/B/A AUDUBON FORD (Parish of E. Baton Rouge)
VICTORY, J., would grant.