Batson challenge in New York

2024"In furtherance of the United States Supreme Court's 'unceasing efforts to eradicate racial discrimination' in the jury selection process, the Court in Batson v Kentucky . . . prescribed a now-familiar three-step test for determining whether peremptory challenges are [impermissibly] based on invidious discrimination" ( People v Smocum , 99 NY2d 418, 421 [2003], quoting Batson v Kentucky , 476 US 79, 85 [1986]). " '[T]he job of enforcing Batson rests first and foremost with the trial judges' who are supposed to 'operate at the front lines of American justice' " ( People v Estwick , ___ NY3d ___

2024"In furtherance of the United States Supreme Court's 'unceasing efforts to eradicate racial discrimination' in the jury selection process, the Court in Batson v Kentucky . . . prescribed a now-familiar three-step test for determining whether peremptory challenges are [impermissibly] based on invidious discrimination" ( People v Smocum , 99 NY2d 418, 421 [2003], quoting Batson v Kentucky , 476 US 79, 85 [1986]). " '[T]he job of enforcing Batson rests first and foremost with the trial judges' who are supposed to 'operate at the front lines of American justice' " ( People v Estwick , ___ NY3d ___

2025Defendant's contention on appeal is limited to step two of the Batson inquiry, which requires the nonmoving party "to offer a facially neutral explanation for each suspect challenge" ( People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 634 [2010], cert denied 563 US 947 [2011]; see People v Allen , 86 NY2d 101, 109 [1995]).

2025Defendant's contention on appeal is limited to step two of the Batson inquiry, which requires the nonmoving party "to offer a facially neutral explanation for each suspect challenge" ( People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 634 [2010], cert denied 563 US 947 [2011]; see People v Allen , 86 NY2d 101, 109 [1995]).

2026The defendant's Batson challenge ( see Batson v Kentucky , 476 US 79 ) to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges was properly denied, as the defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. "'It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed'" ( People v Devane , 242 AD3d 764 , 765, quoting People v Cuesta , 103 AD3d 913, 914 ; see People v Childress , 81 NY2d 263, 268 ).

2026The defendant's Batson challenge ( see Batson v Kentucky , 476 US 79 ) to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges was properly denied, as the defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. "'It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed'" ( People v Devane , 242 AD3d 764 , 765, quoting People v Cuesta , 103 AD3d 913, 914 ; see People v Childress , 81 NY2d 263, 268 ).

2026First, the party raising a Batson challenge must make a prima facie showing that the opposing party exercised a peremptory strike to remove a juror on the basis of race ( see id. at 96).

2026The defendant's Batson challenge ( see Batson v Kentucky , 476 US 79 ) to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges was properly denied, as the defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. "'It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed'" ( People v Devane , 242 AD3d 764 , 765, quoting People v Cuesta , 103 AD3d 913, 914 ; see People v Childress , 81 NY2d 263, 268 ).

2025Initially, the issue whether defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination at step one of the Batson inquiry was rendered moot by County Court's ruling "on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination" ( People v Payne , 88 NY2d 172, 182 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Douglas , 203 AD3d 1682, 1683 [4th Dept 2022]).

2025Initially, the issue whether defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination at step one of the Batson inquiry was rendered moot by County Court's ruling "on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination" ( People v Payne , 88 NY2d 172, 182 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Douglas , 203 AD3d 1682, 1683 [4th Dept 2022]).

2025Thus, the three distinct steps of the Batson framework are not to be skipped, merged, or, as in this case, completely disregarded ( see People v Payne , 88 NY2d 172, 186 [1996]; see also People v Jones , 284 AD2d 46, 48 [1st Dept 2001], affd 99 NY2d 264 [2002]).

2025Thus, the three distinct steps of the Batson framework are not to be skipped, merged, or, as in this case, completely disregarded ( see People v Payne , 88 NY2d 172, 186 [1996]; see also People v Jones , 284 AD2d 46, 48 [1st Dept 2001], affd 99 NY2d 264 [2002]).

2025At step one, the party raising a Batson challenge must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in a manner that allows the judge to infer discriminatory purpose ( see People v Brown , 97 NY2d 500, 507 [2002]). [FN2] Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established, the burden shifts, and at step two, the nonmovant is to provide racially neutral explanations for the challenges ( Bolling , 79 NY2d at 320 ).

2025At step one, the party raising a Batson challenge must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in a manner that allows the judge to infer discriminatory purpose ( see People v Brown , 97 NY2d 500, 507 [2002]). [FN2] Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established, the burden shifts, and at step two, the nonmovant is to provide racially neutral explanations for the challenges ( Bolling , 79 NY2d at 320).

2024In People v Hernandez , this Court affirmed the denial of a Batson challenge regarding two Latino jurors who indicated they were fluent in Spanish ( 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]).

2024In People v Hernandez , this Court affirmed the denial of a Batson challenge regarding two Latino jurors who indicated they were fluent in Spanish ( 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]).

2025Defendant's contention on appeal is limited to step two of the Batson inquiry, which requires the nonmoving party "to offer a facially neutral explanation for each suspect challenge" ( People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 634 [2010], cert denied 563 US 947 [2011]; see People v Allen , 86 NY2d 101, 109 [1995]).

2025Defendant's contention on appeal is limited to step two of the Batson inquiry, which requires the nonmoving party "to offer a facially neutral explanation for each suspect challenge" ( People v Hecker , 15 NY3d 625, 634 [2010], cert denied 563 US 947 [2011]; see People v Allen , 86 NY2d 101, 109 [1995]).

2025Case law also establishes that statistical data can be used to make a prima facie showing of discrimination at step one of a Batson inquiry ( see Bolling , 79 NY2d at 323-325; People v Hawthorne , 80 NY2d 873, 874 [1992], cert denied 81 NY2d 804 [1993] [holding that the defendant met his prima facie burden under step one when he alerted the court that the prosecution used peremptory strikes on four of the six African American members of the venire]; Bridgeforth , 28 NY3d at 575-576 [holding that a defendant met the prima facie burden at step one when they argued that the prosecution used five

2025Case law also establishes that statistical data can be used to make a prima facie showing of discrimination at step one of a Batson inquiry ( see Bolling , 79 NY2d at 323-325; People v Hawthorne , 80 NY2d 873, 874 [1992], cert denied 81 NY2d 804 [1993] [holding that the defendant met his prima facie burden under step one when he alerted the court that the prosecution used peremptory strikes on four of the six African American members of the venire]; Bridgeforth , 28 NY3d at 575-576 [holding that a defendant met the prima facie burden at step one when they argued that the prosecution used five

2026As such, we find that the People did not file the October 2020 COC in good faith . . . " People v. Mazelie , 244 N.Y.S.3d 323 , 328 (3d Dep't 2025). [FN2] The Columbia County District Attorney's Office also has a history of overreach, such as was observed by Judge Zwack in Hudson Police Local 3979 v. Bower , 73 Misc 3d 1063 , 1069 (Sup. Ct. Columbia County 2021), when he wrote: "Here, the DA is impermissibly making himself and his office the repository of every bad act, founded or unfounded, of every law enforcement officer in the County of Columbia, rather than putting into place the mechanis

2026As such, we find that the People did not file the October 2020 COC in good faith . . . " People v. Mazelie , 244 N.Y.S.3d 323 , 328 (3d Dep't 2025). [FN2] The Columbia County District Attorney's Office also has a history of overreach, such as was observed by Judge Zwack in Hudson Police Local 3979 v. Bower , 73 Misc 3d 1063 , 1069 (Sup. Ct. Columbia County 2021), when he wrote: "Here, the DA is impermissibly making himself and his office the repository of every bad act, founded or unfounded, of every law enforcement officer in the County of Columbia, rather than putting into place the mechanis

2024In People v Hernandez , this Court affirmed the denial of a Batson challenge regarding two Latino jurors who indicated they were fluent in Spanish ( 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]).

2024In People v Hernandez , this Court affirmed the denial of a Batson challenge regarding two Latino jurors who indicated they were fluent in Spanish ( 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]).

2019Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention "concerning the court's procedure for determining his Batson objection" ( People v Schumaker , 136 AD3d 1369 , 1371 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1075 [2016], reconsideration denied 28 NY3d 974 [2016]; see People v Collins , 63 AD3d 1609 , 1610 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009]; People v Parker , 304 AD2d 146, 156 [4th Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 585 [2003]).

2016Defendant failed to preserve for our review that part of his contention concerning the court’s procedure for determining his Batson objection (see People v Collins, 63 AD3d 1609, 1610 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009]; People v Parker, 304 AD2d 146, 156 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 585 [2003]).

2017Accordingly, we find that the court properly denied defendant’s Batson challenge (see People v Jenkins, 84 NY2d 1001, 1003 [1994]).

2008Thus, County Court properly denied defendant’s Batson challenge (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507 [2002]; People v Jenkins, 84 NY2d at 1003 ; People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 325 [1992]; People v Williams, 306 AD2d at 691 ; People v King, 277 AD2d 708, 708-709 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 802 [2001]).

2024The standard at {**42 NY3d at 728}step one, two or three is the same in this regard: if race (or any other invidious classification) forms any part of a reason for use of a peremptory strike, Batson requires that the strike be rejected ( People v Luciano , 10 NY3d 499, 505 [2008] ["The purpose of the Batson rule is to eliminate discrimination, not minimize it" (citation and quotation marks omitted)]; Smith v United States , 966 A2d 367, 369 [DC 2009, as amended on reh May 14, 2009] ["race is an impermissible factor, even if a minor one, in exercising peremptory strikes"], quoting Tursio v Unit

2024The standard at {**42 NY3d at 728}step one, two or three is the same in this regard: if race (or any other invidious classification) forms any part of a reason for use of a peremptory strike, Batson requires that the strike be rejected ( People v Luciano , 10 NY3d 499, 505 [2008] ["The purpose of the Batson rule is to eliminate discrimination, not minimize it" (citation and quotation marks omitted)]; Smith v United States , 966 A2d 367, 369 [DC 2009, as amended on reh May 14, 2009] ["race is an impermissible factor, even if a minor one, in exercising peremptory strikes"], quoting Tursio v Unit

2018In any event, by denying defendant's Batson challenge, the court thereby implicitly determined that the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for exercising a peremptory challenge were not pretextual ( see People v Dandridge , 26 AD3d 779, 780 [2006] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; People v Beverly , 6 AD3d 874, 876 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 637 [2004]).

2018Even assuming that this singular conclusion does not necessarily follow from the statements made by Supreme Court in its ruling, we nevertheless find that, "by denying defendant's Batson challenge, the court thereby implicitly determined that the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for exercising [the] peremptory challenge were not pretextual" ( People v Smith , 157 AD3d 978 , 981 [2018], lvs denied 31 NY3d 1087 [2018]; see People v Dandridge , 26 AD3d 779, 780 [2006]; People v Beverly , 6 AD3d 874, 876 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 637 [2004]).

2022The third step of the Batson inquiry requires the trial court to make an ultimate determination on the issue of discriminatory intent based on all of the facts and circumstances presented" ( People v Smocum , 99 NY2d 418, 421-422 [2003]; see People v Morgan , 75 AD3d 1050, 1051-1052 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 894 [2010]).

2022The third step of the Batson inquiry requires the trial court to make an ultimate determination on the issue of discriminatory intent based on all of the facts and circumstances presented" ( People v Smocum , 99 NY2d 418, 421-422 [2003]; see People v Morgan , 75 AD3d 1050, 1051-1052 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 894 [2010]).

2017It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]; People v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2012]; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]).

2017It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]; People v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2012]; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]).

2019Furthermore, defendant's contention that the reasons that the prosecutor gave for striking a prospective juror in response to his Batson challenge were pretextual is also unpreserved inasmuch as defendant "failed to articulate . . . any reason why he believed that the prosecutor's explanations were pretextual" ( People v Santiago , 272 AD2d 418 , 418 [2d Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 907 [2000]; see People v Smocum , 99 NY2d 418, 423-424 [2003]; People v Cooley , 48 AD3d 1091, 1092 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 861 [2008]).

2015Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the prosecutor’s stated reasons for striking a prospective juror in response to a Batson challenge were pretextual, inasmuch as he “failed to articulate [to the court] any reason why he believed that the prosecutor’s explanations were pretextual” (People v Santiago, 272 AD2d 418, 418 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 907 [2000]; see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 423-424 [2003]).

2017It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]; People v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2012]; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]).

2017It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]; People v Valdez-Cruz, 99 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2012]; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]).

2022Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly granted the People's reverse- Batson challenge ( see Batson v Kentucky , 476 US 79 ; People v Kern , 75 NY2d 638 ) with respect to the defense's peremptory challenge as to one particular juror.

2015In the course of jury selection, the defendant exercised several peremptory challenges to prospective jurors, one of which was contested by the People on the ground that the defendant was attempting to exclude white females from the jury, thus raising what is commonly known as a reverse-Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Carrington, 105 AD3d 970, 970 [2013]; see generally People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638, 649-650 [1990]).

2001In Fergas , we held that the trial court properly determined that the facially race-neutral reasons proffered by the codefendant’s counsel in response to the People’s reverse Batson objection were pretextual (see, People v Louis, 239 AD2d 435 ; People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; see also, People v Willard, 226 AD2d 1014 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ).

2000Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the People’s reverse Batson motion (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172 ; People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84 ).

2024Based upon this, we would find that County Court failed to conduct the required third step of the Batson inquiry and that, because of the court's subsequent retirement from the bench, the only permissible remedy would be remittal for a new trial ( see People v Scott , 70 NY2d 420, 426 [1987]; People v Grafton , 132 AD3d at 1068 ).

2024Based upon this, we would find that County Court failed to conduct the required third step of the Batson inquiry and that, because of the court's subsequent retirement from the bench, the only permissible remedy would be remittal for a new trial ( see People v Scott , 70 NY2d 420, 426 [1987]; People v Grafton , 132 AD3d at 1068 ).