Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Roland MARTIN, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered August 8, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
After the trial court found that the prosecutor had established a prima facie case of racial discrimination by the defense counsel in his exercise of peremptory challenges, the court asked the defense counsel to explain his challenges. With respect to prospective juror number two in the third round of jury selection, the defense counsel explained that this juror's father was a judge. The court seated that prospective juror.
The explanation proffered by the defense counsel was a facially-neutral reason sufficient to rebut the People's prima facie showing of discrimination (see, People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 653 N.E.2d 1173). The burden of going forward then shifted to the People, who failed to prove that the peremptory challenge was racially motivated (see, People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84, 635 N.Y.S.2d 263; People v. Moore, 231 A.D.2d 532, 647 N.Y.S.2d 239; People v. Rudd, 225 A.D.2d 710, 639 N.Y.S.2d 455). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed.
In view of our determination that the defendant is entitled to a new trial, we do not reach his remaining contentions.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 10, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)