venire violation in Alabama

1995We do, however, find it necessary to examine that court's rationale for its disposition of one of the issues concerning whether the State improperly used its peremptory strikes to remove prospective black jurors from the venire in violation of Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

1995We do, however, find it necessary to examine that court's rationale for its disposition of one of the issues concerning whether the State improperly used its peremptory strikes to remove prospective black jurors from the venire in violation of Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

1994Ex parte Thomas, 659 So.2d 3 (Ala.1994).

1993Ex parte Branch , 526 So.2d 609 , 623 (Ala. 1987).

1978The Court of Criminal Appeals, therefore, should review the trial court's ruling on defendant's Motion to Quash the Venire and apply the rule of our cases that a jury venire should not be quashed "except on motion and proof in the circuit court showing fraud in filling the jury box or in drawing and summoning them." Bell v. Terry , 213 Ala. 160 , 104 So. 336 (1925).

1978The Court of Criminal Appeals, therefore, should review the trial court's ruling on defendant's Motion to Quash the Venire and apply the rule of our cases that a jury venire should not be quashed "except on motion and proof in the circuit court showing fraud in filling the jury box or in drawing and summoning them." Bell v. Terry , 213 Ala. 160 , 104 So. 336 (1925).

1973Subsequently, Hubbard brought a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, the basis of his petition being that several jurors were wrongfully excused from the venire in violation of the doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 .

1973Subsequently, Hubbard brought a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, the basis of his petition being that several jurors were wrongfully excused from the venire in violation of the doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 .

1918Kuykendall v. State, ante, p. 197, 76 South. 487 ; Shell v. State, 2 Ala. App. 207 , 56 South. 39 ; Henry Evans v. State, 201 Ala. 693 , 79 South. 240 .

1918Kuykendall v. State, ante, p. 197, 76 South. 487 ; Shell v. State, 2 Ala. App. 207 , 56 South. 39 ; Henry Evans v. State, 201 Ala. 693 , 79 South. 240 .

1918Kuykendall v. State, ante, p. 197, 76 South. 487 ; Shell v. State, 2 Ala. App. 207 , 56 South. 39 ; Henry Evans v. State, 201 Ala. 693 , 79 South. 240 .

1918Kuykendall v. State, ante, p. 197, 76 South. 487 ; Shell v. State, 2 Ala. App. 207 , 56 South. 39 ; Henry Evans v. State, 201 Ala. 693 , 79 South. 240 .

1918Kuykendall v. State, ante, p. 197, 76 South. 487 ; Shell v. State, 2 Ala. App. 207 , 56 South. 39 ; Henry Evans v. State, 201 Ala. 693 , 79 South. 240 .

1892Head, who was on the regular panel for the week of appellant’s trial, was the John Head whose name was drawn from the jury box by the presiding judge as one of twenty-five special jurors for the trial of the case was a question of contested fact to be determined by the judge on the motion to quash the venire under the rule laid down by this court in the case of Darby v. The State, 92 Ala. 9 .