© 2005 Lang Baker
Sanchez v StateJune 22, 2005No. PD-1230-04 Concurring opinion by Judge Womack Link to Majority opinion by Judge Cochran
Womack, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Keller, P.J., joined. I join the opinion of the Court with the understanding that the first two paragraphs in Part II of the opinion (ante, at 4) do not say that voir dire examination is justified by the second and third of the three "possible purposes" that are mentioned. The author of the opinion has joined the view, which I have set out elsewhere, that the peremptory-challenge procedure does not justify a party's questioning the jurors about matters other than their qualifications to serve. See Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36, 42 (Tex. Cr. App. 2002) (concurring opinion). And I feel sure that no member of the Court thinks that "indoctrinat[ing] the jurors" is a legitimate purpose. En banc. Filed June 22, 2005. Publish. This information is made available as a free public service for your personal, non-commercial use. While every effort has been made to provide accurate material at this site, it is provided "as is" and no representations are made that it is free of mistakes or inaccuracies. This file was derived from the text posted on the web site of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by the automatic operation of conversion software, and may contain errors.
Baker's Legal Pages are a public service of Freelance Enterprises, Inc.
© 2005 Lang Baker |