Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2021We recognize that the prosecutor's reasons for the exercise of a peremptory challenge need not rise to the level justifying a [*3]challenge for cause ( Batson v Kentucky , 476 US at 97 ; People v Hernandez , 75 NY2d 350, 355 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]). 1997In any event, the court properly concluded that the prosecutor’s multiple stated grounds for the exercise of a peremptory challenge against each of the two individuals in question were non-pretextual (see, Purkett v Elem, 514 US 765 ; People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 , affd 500 US 352 ). | 3 | 4 |
Batson v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2021We recognize that the prosecutor's reasons for the exercise of a peremptory challenge need not rise to the level justifying a [*3]challenge for cause ( Batson v Kentucky , 476 US at 97 ; People v Hernandez , 75 NY2d 350, 355 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]). 1992The prosecutor’s reasons for the exercise of a peremptory challenge need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79, 97 , supra; People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 355, supra). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Smocumgreen2 sentences2008The Court of Appeals has expressly stated that Batson applies to the exercise of a peremptory challenge with respect to a single juror (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 421-422 [2003]; People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507 [2002]). 2005Mindful that the People’s race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge does not have to be plausible or persuasive (see People v Skervin, 13 AD3d 661 , 662 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]) and need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), we conclude that the People overcame whatever inference of discrimination was set forth by the defense in connection with that juror (see People v Richardson, 193 AD2d 969, 971-972 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 725 [1993]; People v Dabbs, 192 AD2d 932, 934 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 707 [1993]; see also People v B | 1 | 2 |
People v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2005Further, we afford considerable deference to County Court’s determination that the People’s proffered explanations were nonpretextual, especially since the court was present for the entire voir dire and uniquely situated to assess the demeanor and body language of this juror (see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 356-357 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]; see also People v Bennett, 206 AD2d 382, 383 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 859 [1995]). 1996Defense counsel’s explanation that he was concerned about the prospective juror’s association with the police is not pretextual on its face (see, People v Bennett, 206 AD2d 382 ; People v Williams, 176 AD2d 245 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Paynegreen2 sentences2005Under the circumstances, we find permissible justifications for the exercise of a peremptory challenge (see generally People v Payne, supra at 183; see also United States v Hinton, 94 F3d 396, 397-398 [1996]). 1997Memorandum: The prosecutor provided a race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge against an Afro-American potential juror, and defendant failed to sustain his burden of persuasion that the prosecutor’s explanation was a pretext for racial discrimination (s ee, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181 ; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 110 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence2008The Court of Appeals has expressly stated that Batson applies to the exercise of a peremptory challenge with respect to a single juror (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 421-422 [2003]; People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Donald E. Hinton, Sr.green1 sentence2005Under the circumstances, we find permissible justifications for the exercise of a peremptory challenge (see generally People v Payne, supra at 183; see also United States v Hinton, 94 F3d 396, 397-398 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bryantgreen1 sentence2005Mindful that the People’s race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge does not have to be plausible or persuasive (see People v Skervin, 13 AD3d 661 , 662 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]) and need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), we conclude that the People overcame whatever inference of discrimination was set forth by the defense in connection with that juror (see People v Richardson, 193 AD2d 969, 971-972 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 725 [1993]; People v Dabbs, 192 AD2d 932, 934 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 707 [1993]; see also People v B | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andrewsgreen1 sentence2005Mindful that the People’s race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge does not have to be plausible or persuasive (see People v Skervin, 13 AD3d 661 , 662 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]) and need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), we conclude that the People overcame whatever inference of discrimination was set forth by the defense in connection with that juror (see People v Richardson, 193 AD2d 969, 971-972 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 725 [1993]; People v Dabbs, 192 AD2d 932, 934 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 707 [1993]; see also People v B | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dabbsgreen1 sentence2005Mindful that the People’s race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge does not have to be plausible or persuasive (see People v Skervin, 13 AD3d 661 , 662 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]) and need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), we conclude that the People overcame whatever inference of discrimination was set forth by the defense in connection with that juror (see People v Richardson, 193 AD2d 969, 971-972 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 725 [1993]; People v Dabbs, 192 AD2d 932, 934 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 707 [1993]; see also People v B | 1 | 1 |
People v. Richardsongreen1 sentence2005Mindful that the People’s race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge does not have to be plausible or persuasive (see People v Skervin, 13 AD3d 661 , 662 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]) and need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), we conclude that the People overcame whatever inference of discrimination was set forth by the defense in connection with that juror (see People v Richardson, 193 AD2d 969, 971-972 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 725 [1993]; People v Dabbs, 192 AD2d 932, 934 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 707 [1993]; see also People v B | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ballgreen1 sentence2005Mindful that the People’s race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge does not have to be plausible or persuasive (see People v Skervin, 13 AD3d 661 , 662 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]) and need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), we conclude that the People overcame whatever inference of discrimination was set forth by the defense in connection with that juror (see People v Richardson, 193 AD2d 969, 971-972 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 725 [1993]; People v Dabbs, 192 AD2d 932, 934 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 707 [1993]; see also People v B | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2005Mindful that the People’s race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge does not have to be plausible or persuasive (see People v Skervin, 13 AD3d 661 , 662 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]) and need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), we conclude that the People overcame whatever inference of discrimination was set forth by the defense in connection with that juror (see People v Richardson, 193 AD2d 969, 971-972 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 725 [1993]; People v Dabbs, 192 AD2d 932, 934 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 707 [1993]; see also People v B 2005Moreover, inasmuch as defendant declined to address the issue further during the colloquy with County Court, we cannot conclude that he met his “ultimate burden of showing that the reasons given were merely a pretext for intentional discrimination” (People v Skervin, supra at 662; see People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burgessgreen1 sentence1995Defense counsel’s explanation that Levin had been a crime victim was not pretextual on its face (People v Dixon, supra, at 18 ; see, People v Brown, 212 AD2d 539 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ), and it was related to the factual circumstances of the case (see, People v Martinez, 207 AD2d 807 ; People v Williams, 199 AD2d 445 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. New York
green
2 sentences2021We recognize that the prosecutor's reasons for the exercise of a peremptory challenge need not rise to the level justifying a [*3]challenge for cause ( Batson v Kentucky , 476 US at 97 ; People v Hernandez , 75 NY2d 350, 355 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]). 2002When evaluating whether a gender-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge is pretextual, a trial court is generally in the best position to make the determination (see Hernandez v New York, supra). | 8 | 1995–2021 |
People v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2000While a trial court is generally in the best position to evaluate whether a racially-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge is pretextual (see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ), we find that the prosecutor’s explanation for striking one of these jurors, i.e., that she had only a high school education, was pretextual under the circumstances of this case. 1996While a trial court is generally in the best position to evaluate whether a gender-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge is pretextual (see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ), we agree with the defendant that defense counsel’s explanation was improperly rejected by the trial court. | 4 | 1995–2000 |
People v. Allen
green
2 sentences1998A party need give no reason at all for the exercise of a peremptory challenge (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 109 ), and thus step one of the Batson inquiry requires the defendant to establish a prima facie case by showing that “there exist facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors because of their race” (People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 266 ). 1997Memorandum: The prosecutor provided a race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge against an Afro-American potential juror, and defendant failed to sustain his burden of persuasion that the prosecutor’s explanation was a pretext for racial discrimination (s ee, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181 ; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 110 ). | 3 | 1995–1998 |
People v. Culhane
green
2 sentences1984The theory of this rule — a codification of the common law (People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90, 97 ) — is that it is necessary that the objectionable juror be forced upon the complaining party who could not be rid of the juror by the exercise of a peremptory challenge (Busch, Law and Tactics in Jury Trials, § 77). 1980It is only when a prospective juror has been challenged for cause and that challenge has been denied that such an issue is preserved for appellate review (CPL 270.15, subd 4; 270.20, subd 2; People v Provenzano, 50 NY2d 420 ; People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90 ). | 2 | 1980–1984 |
People v. Spaulding
green
1 sentence2005Mindful that the People’s race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge does not have to be plausible or persuasive (see People v Skervin, 13 AD3d 661 , 662 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 833 [2005]) and need only be “facially permissible” (People v Smocum, supra at 422 ), we conclude that the People overcame whatever inference of discrimination was set forth by the defense in connection with that juror (see People v Richardson, 193 AD2d 969, 971-972 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 725 [1993]; People v Dabbs, 192 AD2d 932, 934 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 707 [1993]; see also People v B | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Richie
green
1 sentence2004The defendant met his burden of showing that the prosecutor’s reason for the exercise of a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror was a pretext for racial discrimination (see People v Pierrot, 289 AD2d 511 [2001]; People v Richie, supra). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Pierrot
green
1 sentence2004The defendant met his burden of showing that the prosecutor’s reason for the exercise of a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror was a pretext for racial discrimination (see People v Pierrot, 289 AD2d 511 [2001]; People v Richie, supra). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Reyes
green
1 sentence2001An implicit rejection of the claim that use of a peremptory challenge was pretextual is entitled to great deference (People v Reyes, 274 AD2d 323 , lv denied 95 NY2d 870 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Cuevas
neutral
1 sentence2001Work experience, or the lack thereof, is a race-neutral and non-pretextual reason for the exercise of a peremptory challenge (People v Cuevas, 277 AD2d 56 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Childress
green
1 sentence1998A party need give no reason at all for the exercise of a peremptory challenge (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 109 ), and thus step one of the Batson inquiry requires the defendant to establish a prima facie case by showing that “there exist facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors because of their race” (People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 266 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Purkett v. Elem
green
1 sentence1997In any event, the court properly concluded that the prosecutor’s multiple stated grounds for the exercise of a peremptory challenge against each of the two individuals in question were non-pretextual (see, Purkett v Elem, 514 US 765 ; People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 , affd 500 US 352 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Williams
neutral
1 sentence1996Defense counsel’s explanation that he was concerned about the prospective juror’s association with the police is not pretextual on its face (see, People v Bennett, 206 AD2d 382 ; People v Williams, 176 AD2d 245 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Harris green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Benson
neutral
1 sentence1995Because of our determination, we need not decide whether the reasons proffered by the defense counsel with regard to the two other white jurors were pretextual (see generally, People v Benson, 184 AD2d 517 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Williams green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Roberts
green
1 sentence1995His contention that the prosecutor unlawfully discriminated in the exercise of a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Roberts, 204 AD2d 974, 975 , lv denied 84 NY2d 871 ; People v Harris, 151 AD2d 961 ), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Martinez
neutral
1 sentence1995Defense counsel’s explanation that Levin had been a crime victim was not pretextual on its face (People v Dixon, supra, at 18 ; see, People v Brown, 212 AD2d 539 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ), and it was related to the factual circumstances of the case (see, People v Martinez, 207 AD2d 807 ; People v Williams, 199 AD2d 445 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Jupiter
green
1 sentence1995Defense counsel’s explanation that Levin had been a crime victim was not pretextual on its face (People v Dixon, supra, at 18 ; see, People v Brown, 212 AD2d 539 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ), and it was related to the factual circumstances of the case (see, People v Martinez, 207 AD2d 807 ; People v Williams, 199 AD2d 445 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Irizarry green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Gilmore green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Legister green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Stokes v. . People of the State of N.Y. green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Walter v. . the People neutral | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Swain v. Alabama red | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Provenzano green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.