You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL RAISED A BATSON OBJECTION TO THE STRIKING OF FIVE JURORS;...
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAISED A BATSON OBJECTION TO THE STRIKING OF FIVE JURORS; THE JUDGE RESTRICTED THE CHALLENGES TO TWO OF THE FIVE STRUCK IN THE MOST RECENT ROUND OF JURY SELECTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should not have limited the defense Batson objections to the prosecutor’s striking non-white potential jurors. Defense counsel challenged the striking of five jurors but the judge limited the challenges to the two struck in the most recent round of jury selection:

… [D]efense counsel made an application pursuant to Batson as to the five prospective nonwhite jurors stricken from the three rounds. Defense counsel stated: “that will be a total of . . . five non-white jurors that were struck by the People, and there have not been that many non-white potential jurors we have seen.” Defense counsel added, “so out of the 11 strikes, five of them were for non-white jurors,” and “I believe that makes a prima facie case regarding the protective class”. The court responded: “Let’s talk about this round only.” The People proceeded to proffer reasons for striking only the two panelists from the third round. The defense renewed its Batson challenge when the prosecution struck a sixth nonwhite potential juror in a subsequent round, stating that the People “are deliberately striking non-white jurors.” The court specifically stated it was “not going to address that” and defense counsel noted their exception. …

The trial court erred in denying defendants an opportunity to present their full Batson challenge when it improperly limited the inquiry to only two of the challenged prospective jurors. As this Court held in People v Frazier (125 AD3d 449, 449 [1st Dept 2015]), “[a]lthough the court did not make a specific ruling that defendants satisfied step one of Batson (prima facie case of discrimination), once it ordered the prosecutor to provide the reasons for his peremptory challenges to two of the . . . panelists who were the subject of defendants’ application, it should have required the prosecutor to articulate his reasons for striking the remaining . . . panelists, as defendants specifically requested.” The People argue that unlike Frazier, the trial court here simply directed the parties to focus on the panelists challenged in round three of jury selection and the prosecutor volunteered race-neutral reasons without being ordered to do so. This is a distinction without a difference. As in Frazier, once the trial court asked the prosecutor to offer race-neutral reasons for striking two of the prospective jurors, it should have also requested an explanation for striking the remaining panelists that were part of the same application. The court failed to do so, and consequently, the case should be remanded for a new trial. People v Julio, 2023 NY Slip Op 04349, First Dept 8-17-23

Practice Point: When defense counsel raised Batson challenges to five jurors who had been struck, the judge limited the challenges to the two struck in the most recent round of jury selection. That was reversible error.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISION OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS NO LONGER OPERABLE BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS REVOKED AFTER THE CONTINGENCY PERIOD HAD ELAPSED, THE SELLER’S BAD FAITH WARRANTED RETURN OF THE DOWN PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY OR INCREASED PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
COUNSELING OR TREATMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE A CONDITION FOR ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION OF PARENTAL ACCESS; HOWEVER COUNSELING AND TREATMENT MAY BE MADE A COMPONENT OF CURRENT PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).
FORMER SISTERS-IN-LAW WHO LIVED ONE MILE APART AND SAW EACH OTHER FREQUENTLY FOR 30 YEARS HAD AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” WHICH SUPPORTED THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
OWNER OF OWNER-OCCUPIED TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY FOR A SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL PURSUANT TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE COMMON LAW; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Primary Assumption of Risk Jury Charge Required Reversal.
THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
“Whistleblower Statute” Cause of Action Should Have Survived the Motion to Dismiss—No Need to Cite Particular Statute, Rule or Regulation Alleged to Have Been Violated by the Employer in the Complaint

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, 18, TO DRIVE HIS LAMBORGHINI WHILE... THE FACT THAT THE CONTAMINATED AREA WHERE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS TO BE LOCATED...