You are here: / / THE THREE-STEP BATSON PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED WHEN THE DEFENDANT OBJECTED...

THE THREE-STEP BATSON PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED WHEN THE DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO SATISFY BATSON (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined the three-step Batson procedure was not followed when the defense objected to the People’s peremptory challenge to an African-American prospective juror:

After defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination in step one, the prosecutor offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge … , namely, that the prospective juror had a sister who was incarcerated for assaulting someone with a gun and that the prospective juror said that the criminal justice system could have treated her sister better. When defense counsel attempted to respond, the court interrupted him and stated, “I ruled. There is no Batson issue.” Defense counsel timely objected to the court’s ruling. In our view, defense counsel should have been “given the opportunity to argue that the prosecutor’s explanation[ was] a pretext for discrimination” … . * * *

… [W]hen it interrupted defense counsel, “the court improperly rushed and compressed the Batson inquiry,” precluding defendant from meeting “his burden of establishing an equal protection violation” … . To be distinguished are situations in which defense counsel does not make “any attempt to respond or protest[ ]” …  or in which the court implicitly rejects the pretext argument by letting the challenge stand after hearing a defense counsel’s arguments concerning pretext … . People v Singleton, 2021 NY Slip Op 01638, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

You might also like
CPL 330.30 MOTION ALLEGING JUROR MISCONDUCT DURING DELIBERATIONS, I.E. CONDUCTING A REENACTMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
CITY EMPLOYEE’S CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO MEDICAL BENEFITS VESTED BEFORE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS TERMINATED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE HAD TO “MANIPULATE” THE CHECKS TO DETERMINE THEY WERE FORGED; THEREFORE THE “PLAIN VIEW” EXCEPTION TO THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
“Negligent Ownership and Maintenance” vs “Negligent Abatement” Causes of Action in Lead-Paint Case
QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE CASUAL SELLERS OF THE GAS PUMPS SOLD TO A SCRAP YARD AND THEREFORE OWED NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF AND (2) WHETHER DEFENDANTS OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE IN THE PUMP WHICH EXPLODED WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FOURTH DEPT).​
SKATER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK CREATED BY A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ICE SURFACE AND SKATER’S AWARENESS OF THE CONDITION RELATES ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WAS PROPERLY DECLARED INVALID 4TH DEPT.
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FATAL VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE DECEDENT’S ALLEGED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT BAR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STATEMENTS MADE AFTER DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD HAVE... DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION PAPERS RAISED A FACTUAL ISSUE REQUIRING...