Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
american lawyer media news service A black prospective juror who would not assure prosecutors that she could disregard her life experiences as a racial minority was improperly excluded from a criminal jury, an appellate court in New York has found. The Appellate Division, 3d Department, said Albany County, N.Y., prosecutors failed to meet their burden of establishing a race-neutral reason for the woman’s exclusion from the jury. That juror was among six blacks in the venire, and among four peremptorily stricken by the prosecution. “[T]here is . . . nothing in the juror’s actual comments to suggest that her particular life experience as an African-American would improperly bias her in favor of defendant or against the prosecution,” the court said in an opinion by Justice Robert S. Rose. People v. Van Hoesen, No. 11580, was an assault case involving a black defendant. After the prosecutor used peremptories to exclude several minorities from the jury, the defense mounted a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). In response, the prosecutor noted that the juror in question, who stressed that she would decide the case on the facts, indicated that her ethnic background brought a different perspective and that she could not shed her heritage. The defense countered that it was entitled to her perspective. Justice Dan Lamont of New York’s trial-level supreme court denied the Batson challenge and the defendant was convicted. Last week, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed. “[T]he prosecutor’s explanation related only to the juror’s race and stereotypical assumption that an African-American perspective would be biased against the prosecution,” Rose wrote, adding that the explanation itself was “facially discriminatory” and that the discrimination violated the defendant’s equal protection rights. Joining Rose were justices Thomas E. Mercure, Anthony J. Carpinello, Carl J. Mugglin and Anthony T. Kane.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.