THE PEOPLE & C., APPELLANT, v. ROBERT L. ALLEN, RESPONDENT
86 N.Y.2d 101, 653 N.E.2d 1173, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003
July 6, 1995
3 No. 175 (1995 NY Int. 183)
Decided July 6, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
NancyLynn S. Ferrini, for Appellant.
Gregory V. Canale, for Respondent.
New York State District Attorneys Association, amicus curiae.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
Determining whether a party has exercised peremptory challenges to
strike potential jurors for reasons that implicate equal protection
concerns is described as a three-step process (Batson v Kentucky, 476
US 79, 96-98; Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352, 358, affg 75 NY2d
350). First, the defendant must allege sufficient facts to raise an
inference that the prosecution has exercised peremptory challenges for
discriminatory purposes.(n 1) Second, if t he requisite showing has
been made, the burden shifts to the prosecution to articulate a
neutral explanation for striking the jurors in question. Finally, the
trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are
pretextual (Hernandez, 500 US at 358-359).
In this appeal, defendant alleges that the People failed to meet their
burden under step two because they did not show that the neutral
reasons they advanced for striking some men were consistently applied
to women jurors who were seated. The Appellate Division, in concluding
that the People were obligated to make such a showing as part of step
two, applied an incorrect legal standard.
Facts
During voir dire at defendant's trial for incest and sexual abuse, the
prosecutor exercised fourteen of her fifteen peremptory challenges
against male jurors and defense counsel exercised all fifteen
peremptory challenges against female jurors. The jury ultimately
consisted of five men and seven women.
Defendant moved for a mistrial, alleging that the prosecutor's
SNIPPETS:
Gregory V. Canale, for Respondent.
Determining whether a party has exercised peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors
First, the defendant must allege sufficient facts to raise an inference that the prosecution
Finally, the trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are pretextual
During voir dire at defendant's trial for incest and sexual abuse, the prosecutor exercised
Defendant moved for a mistrial, alleging that the prosecutor's peremptory challenges had been
The People offered to provide neutral explanations for their challenges, but the trial court
On appeal, the Appellate Division held that defendant had established a prima facie case of
The hearing, held before the original trial judge nearly two years after verdict, was limited
The fourth believed child sexual abuse was a "family problem," only rarely a criminal matter.
Four more of the potential jurors, according to the prosecutor, had hostile associations with
For each of the strikes, the court found that the prosecutor had given a gender-neutral
Challenges were not, however, exercised to strike women, despite their associations with
The defendant's ultimate burden of proving discriminatory intent was met b ecause the People,
Apparently uneven application of neutral factors may not always indicate pretext, however,
For that reason, where counsel has perceived something suggesting a discriminatory motive in
|
