Regulates discrimination in exercise of peremptory challenge

Title of bill

An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to the exercise of peremptory challenges

Summary

This bill would add a new subdivision one-a to Criminal Procedure Law §270.25 to prescribe a specific procedure by which a criminal trial judge may determine whether a party has engaged in purposeful discrimination against prospective jurors in the exercise of peremptory challenges. This bill would provide that at any time after jury selection has begun and before the opening statement has been made to the prosecutor, either party may make a motion in writing or orally for an order discharging the jury panel or for other appropriate relief upon the grounds that the other party has purposefully discriminated on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Such motion would be made outside of the hearing of both prospective and sworn jurors. Each party would be afforded an opportunity to be heard and the court would be required to determine whether the moving party had established purposeful discrimination on the part of the other party. In those instances where the court determines that a party has engaged in purposeful discrimination against prospective jurors in the exercise of peremptory challenges, this bill would permit the court to seat the juror, discharge the jury panel or fashion any other appropriate remedy.

Justification

In April of 1986, the united States Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution forbids a prosecutor to challenge potential jurors based on their race.

BATSON V. KENTUCKY , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). This bill would prohibit either party from making peremptory challenges based on a juror's race, sex, religion or national origin. Nevertheless, New York's Criminal Procedure Law is silent on the procedure which either a prosecutor or a defense lawyer must follow when he or she seeks to challenge juror selection which is believed to have been unconstitutionally motivated on the basis of racial discrimination. Because of the law's silence, both lawyers and judges must deal with such challenges on a case-by-case basis. As a result, practice may vary widely from county to county and in some cases, from judge to judge.

Fiscal implication

None.

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law and shall apply to all jury selections commenced on or after such date.