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. Robert FOGLE, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered February 13, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The racially-motivated use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of both the State and Federal Constitutions whether they are made by the defense or the prosecution (see, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395; Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69; People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, 555 N.Y.S.2d 647, 554 N.E.2d 1235). Here, after the prosecutor argued that the defense counsel was using his peremptory strikes to exclude white jurors from the panel, the defense counsel proffered race-neutral explanations for the challenges. The trial court rejected these proffered explanations as pretextual and seated two challenged jurors over objection.
Viewing the totality of the circumstances (see, Hernandez v. New York, supra), especially the fact that defense counsel exercised 9 out of 10 of his peremptory challenges to exclude prospective white jurors, there is no basis upon which to overturn the trial court's determination which is to be given great deference on appeal (see, Hernandez v. New York, supra; People v. Garcia, 239 A.D.2d 599, 658 N.Y.S.2d 365), that the explanations proffered by the defense counsel were merely pretextual.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: April 12, 1999
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)