Gen., for appellee.We, therefore, find that the trial court's determination that the district attorney's explanations were sufficient to overcome the presumption of discrimination and that his explanations were "race-neutral" fails to meet the requirements of Batson v. Kentucky and Ex parte Branch, as herein cited. A third black member of the venire was struck because he lived at "Alabama Village" in Prichard, which was in the part of the county near St. Stephens Road. *423 Leonard A. Mancini, Huntsville, for appellant.The first aspect of the legislative scheme, establishing the Board to regulate the home building industry, concerned itself with who was building houses in rural areas; the second aspect, empowering county commissioners to set standards, concerned itself with how the houses were being built.Because of the time frame within which the material events occurred, we affirm the trial court's denial of Smith's petition for injunctive relief. The determinations of the trial court are clearly erroneous. The circuit court denied the injunction. This request was denied. Upon the filing by the trial court of this order, which the trial court shall furnish this court, we will then dismiss this appeal.As directed, the circuit court has conducted a hearing on this question and has filed its return in this court as directed in this court's initial opinion in this cause.Without dispute in this cause, the victim was a white police officer and the appellant a black male. Madison v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections. Indeed, any such recommendation to the legislature regarding the Board would have preceded the county commission's adoption of its first building code, which became effective January 1, 1994. An additional member was struck because he "fell asleep during voir dire and recess". Mr. Copeland testified that he struck seven blacks from the venire through the use of peremptory challenges. CR-90-336.
620 So. [1] Because Smith sought a permanent injunction as the sole relief on the merits, we consider this case de novo and not by the customary "abuse of discretion" standard applicable to a temporary injunction.The issue arises in the following context: Before 1992, Alabama counties had no authority to enact building codes to address home building problems within unincorporated areas.
200. The district attorney's general assertion that he did not strike jurors on the basis of race, but on other reasons which appear to us to be superficial and show a lack of proper examination of such jurors leaves this court no alternative but to reverse and remand this cause for a new trial because of the explanations given by the district attorney.At the hearing before the circuit court, Mr. Lloyd Copeland, who is currently a private practitioner, testified that in September, 1985, he was employed in the Mobile County District Attorney's office and was charged with prosecuting the Vernon Madison case. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. Branch dictates otherwise:BOWEN, J., concurs in result only with opinion in which McMILLAN, J., joins.For the foregoing reasons, this cause is reversed and remanded.With reference to the appellant's contention that his "Equal Protection of Law" rights were violated by the State's use of its peremptory strikes, as hereinabove set forth, the circuit court entered its order and judgment in this cause following the hearing which reads as follows:BOWEN, Judge, concurring in result only.The appellant contends his "equal protection of law rights" were violated by the State's use of its peremptory strikes to remove all seven prospective black jurors from the venire in this cause. During the years 1992 and 1993, the Board received no notice from the Sunset Committee and was not subjected to any review process by it.Robert A. Huffaker of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, Montgomery, and David R. Boyd of Balch & Bingham, Montgomery, for Home Builders Licensure Bd.MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, INGRAM, COOK and BUTTS, JJ., concur.On May 5, 1993, following review by a legislative committee, the Board's administrative rules and regulations became effective.