99 A.D.3d 943
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- Batson framework requires a prima facie showing of discriminatory purpose in jury selection.
- If prima facie shown, prosecution must offer a race-neutral explanation for challenged peremptories.
- If explanation is facially permissible, the court evaluates for discriminatory intent based on all facts.
- Defendant alleged a black female juror, a retired NYC police officer, was struck while a white male officer was not.
- Trial court rejected Batson analysis; the issue was not fully developed there.
- Court remits the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on Batson issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a prima facie showing of discrimination? | Gray; infers discrimination from striking a black juror and not striking a white counterpart. | Prosecution could rely on neutral explanations if available. | Remand for Batson inquiry; issue not resolved here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79 (U.S. 1986) (establishes Batson framework and prima facie burden)
- Johnson v. California, 545 US 162 (U.S. 2005) (race may be considered in jury selection context)
- People v Jones, 63 AD3d 758 (2d Dep’t 2009) (prima facie standard not onerous; permits inference of discrimination)
- People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263 (NY 1993) (outline of Batson two-step approach)
- People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418 (NY 2003) (discrimination inference depends on overall proceedings)
- People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317 (NY 1992) (peremptory challenge analysis and inference framework)
- People v Scott, 70 NY2d 420 (NY 1987) (illustrates Batson inference concerns)
- People v Gray, 68 AD3d 1131 (2d Dep’t 2009) (discrimination need not be shown by a pattern)
- People v Berry, 302 AD2d 536 (1st Dep’t 2003) (additional Batson considerations)