MUNCH v. BACKER, 2004-1136 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/5/07)

ARMSTRONG, C.J., concurring.Page 1

In view of Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service, 05-1457 c/w 2344 c/w 2520 (La. 1/26/07), 951 So.2d 138, I feel compelled to respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority.

JONES, J., concurring with reasons.Page 1

I respectfully concur. The district court did not err in objecting to plaintiff counsel's Batson/Edmondson exclusions with respect to the three prospective jurors at issue. Further, I find no error with respect to remanding the matter to the district court.

However, I write separately to emphasize that the district court, observing what the Court thinks is a violation of Federal and State constitutions, has a fundamental right, without the objection of a party, to call into question unpermissive conduct. Thus, the conduct of the district court was quite proper in questioning whether plaintiffs counsel, in striking prospective jurors, was acting in a manner consistent with law.