People v. Hernandez

75 N.Y.2d 350 · New York Court of Appeals · 1990

Facts

Defendant attempted to kill his young woman friend and her mother as they left a restaurant in Brooklyn. During the incident, random shots from defendant’s gun struck and wounded two other patrons of the restaurant. Defendant was subsequently convicted of two counts each of attempted murder and criminal possession of a weapon. During jury selection, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude all Latino prospective jurors, including two who were fluent in Spanish.

Procedural history

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction. A Judge of this court granted leave to appeal, bringing the case before this court.

Issue

The legal question is whether the prosecution provided a sufficiently neutral explanation for exercising peremptory challenges against two Spanish-speaking Latino prospective jurors, thereby refuting the inference of purposeful discrimination under Batson v Kentucky. Specifically, the issue is whether concerns about a juror's ability to accept official court translations due to their Spanish fluency constitute a valid, non-discriminatory reason for exclusion.

Holding

The court held that the prosecutor fulfilled his burden of coming forward with a satisfactory, neutral, and nondiscriminatory explanation for the peremptory strikes. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no equal protection violation or other error.

Rule

Under Batson v Kentucky, once a defendant establishes a prima facie case of discriminatory peremptory challenges, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a neutral explanation for the strikes. This explanation need not rise to the level of a challenge for cause, but cannot be based on an assumption of bias due to shared race or ethnicity. Excluding jurors because their knowledge of a language might interfere with their sworn responsibility to accept official court translations is a legitimate neutral ground. The trial court's determination of whether the explanation is pretextual or real is given "great deference" on appeal.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.