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. Kevin JONES, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered April 25, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on the defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges against three black male venirepersons, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court shall file its report with all convenient speed.
“Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice” (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 87, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69). “The Batson framework is designed to produce actual answers to suspicions and inferences that discrimination may have infected the jury selection process” (Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 172, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 162 L.Ed.2d 129). The first step of the Batson framework requires that a defendant set forth a prima facie case “by showing that the totality of the relevant facts give rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose” (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, at 93-94, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69). This first step is not to be onerous and “a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson's first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred” (Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 170, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 162 L.Ed.2d 129).
The sum of the facts presented by the defendant in this case was sufficient to give rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose in the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges. The trial court should have proceeded with the second and third steps of the Batson inquiry. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for that purpose. We decide no other issues at this time.
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: June 02, 2009
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)