MALLORY, DERICK, PEOPLE v, KA 12-02072

Defendant Derick Mallory was convicted by a jury of first- and second-degree robbery in Erie County Supreme Court; sentence followed and he appealed.
During jury selection the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove two Black prospective jurors after asking them whether police "unfairly target members of the minority community."
The trial court asked the prosecutor to state race-neutral reasons for the strikes on the record.
The prosecutor explained the strikes by reference to the prospective jurors’ answers about police treatment and explicitly noted the race of police witnesses for one challenge.
Defendant raised a Batson challenge asserting the strikes were racially motivated; the Appellate Division examined the Batson three-step framework and found error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of two Black jurors violated Batson	State: prosecutor asked race-neutral, case-related questions about attitudes toward police and had legitimate concerns about evaluating police testimony	Mallory: strikes were racially discriminatory because prosecutor targeted only Black jurors with a race-based question and referenced race in explanation	Reversed: strikes violated Batson — prosecutor failed to give adequate race-neutral reasons and proffer was pretextual
Whether the voir dire question about police bias was sufficiently case-related	State: question ensured jurors would fairly assess police testimony	Mallory: question was race-based and unrelated to case facts (no racial profiling claim)	Court: question was unrelated to case and was impermissibly targeted at Black jurors
Whether prosecutor’s selective questioning of only Black jurors supports an inference of discrimination	State: no discriminatory intent shown once reasons given	Mallory: singling out Black jurors and not white panelists supports inference of discrimination	Court: selective questioning and explicit race reference undermined any race-neutral explanation
Whether the verdict should be disturbed on weight-of-the-evidence grounds	State: evidence supported convictions	Mallory: argued verdict against weight of evidence	Court: rejected weight challenge but ordered new trial on Batson grounds

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (establishing three-step test for peremptory challenge racial discrimination)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (selective questioning of jurors can support inference of discriminatory intent)
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (race-neutral reason = explanation based on something other than race)
People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625 (New York application of Batson standards)
People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418 (Batson burden-shifting framework described)
People v. James, 99 N.Y.2d 264 (Batson analysis context)
People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101 (discriminatory intent may taint race-neutral explanations)
People v. Duncan, 177 A.D.2d 187 (race-neutral reason must relate to the case)
People v. Pierrot, 289 A.D.2d 511 (questions unrelated to case may not justify strikes)
Splunge v. Clark, 960 F.2d 705 (explaining when explanations may reveal discriminatory intent)
People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342 (standard for reviewing sufficiency/weight of evidence)
People v. Wilmot, 34 A.D.3d 1225 (granting new trial where Batson error found)
People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490 (standard for weight-of-the-evidence review)