use of the peremptory challenge in New York

2024Following Washington's lead, in 2020, the California legislature adopted section 231.7 to the California Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the "court shall consider only the reasons actually given" and shall disallow use of a peremptory strike if "the court determines there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person would view race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge" (Cal Civ Pro Code § 231.7 [d] [1

2016This is especially true when a prosecutor cites a juror's demeanor as the reason for the use of the peremptory challenge (see e.g. id. at 479 ).

2016This is especially true when a prosecutor cites a juror’s demeanor as the reason for the use of the peremptory challenge (see e.g. id. at 479 ).

2010Inasmuch as the People met their burden by “ ‘offering [three] facially neutral reason[s] for the challenge—even if [those] reason[s] [were] ill-founded—so long as the reason [s] [do] not violate equal protection . . . , we cannot say that the prosecutor’s justifications for the use of the peremptory challenge were inadequate’ ” (Wells, 7 NY3d at 59 ).

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]).

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]).

1999The initial burden is on the defendant objecting to the use of the peremptory challenge to allege facts raising the inference of discrimination (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 104 ), whereupon the burden shifts to the prosecution to articulate a race-neutral reason for striking the juror (see, id., at 109 ).

1999The initial burden is on the defendant objecting to the use of the peremptory challenge to allege facts raising the inference of discrimination (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 104 ), whereupon the burden shifts to the prosecution to articulate a race-neutral reason for striking the juror (see, id., at 109 ).

1996Thereafter, in Edmonson v Leesville Concrete Co. ( 500 US 614 [1991]), the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits both parties in a civil suit from exercising peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race, again concerned with juror’s rights.