People v. Mancini
| Decision Date | 07 September 1995 |
| Citation | 631 N.Y.S.2d 151,219 A.D.2d 456 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mitchell MANCINI, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A.H. Saperstein, for respondent.
P. Weinstein, for defendant-appellant.
Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and ELLERIN, RUBIN, ROSS and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, (Frank Diaz, J.), rendered July 13, 1993, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).
In a prior order (People v. Mancini, 207 A.D.2d 730, 616 N.Y.S.2d 613), this Court found that defendant's conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence and by the weight of the evidence adduced at trial; that there was no basis for a missing witness charge as the witness was unavailable to the People; and that, in the absence of any objection to the court's curative instructions, defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. However, based upon the disposition of the appeal brought by his accomplice in the robbery (People v. Pagano, 207 A.D.2d 685, 616 N.Y.S.2d 366), we held defendant's appeal in abeyance and remanded the matter to Supreme Court for a Batson hearing. Following a hearing conducted on January 13, 1995, Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had provided race-neutral explanations for the exercise of peremptory challenges during the first round of jury selection. We now affirm that ruling.
Defendant argues that the reasons stated by the prosecutor for exercising peremptory challenges to exclude five of six available Caucasian panelists, while "facially nondiscriminatory, are merely pretextual". The case involves the robbery of a 36-year-old African-American woman when the automobile in which she was travelling with her 10-year-old Goddaughter became disabled. The defendants, the two police officers who investigated the robbery and the Assistant District Attorney who tried the matter are all Caucasian. Both police officers gave evidence at trial.
At the hearing, the Assistant District Attorney stated that the criteria he employed in selecting jurors was to seek older, married or divorced persons who would be able to reach a guilty verdict despite the lack of an out-of-court identification (because the line-up had been suppressed) and the absence of testimony by the victim's Goddaughter (who had been sent to England to spare her the trauma of a trial appearance). He therefore used peremptory challenges to exclude young, single panelists who, presumably childless, would fail to identify with the family's desire to protect the child. He also sought to empanel jurors who were less educated than the victim who would be disposed to respect her educational accomplishments (she holds a doctoral degree). Finally, he sought to exclude anyone who worked in a school environment because of a negative personal experience with a teacher.
The record reveals that the Assistant District Attorney was given only 15 or 20 minutes to question the panel during the first round of the voir dire. Consistent with his ideal juror profile, the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges against three white panelists. An unmarried accounts payable supervisor was excluded because, the prosecutor testified, he regarded her as "very intelligent" and was disturbed both by her inability to recall anything about a prior trial on which she served as a juror and by a perception that she "bonded" with defense counsel. A young, single, woman who worked as an assistant registrar at a school was excluded, as was a young, male elementary school teacher. The prosecutor stated that he finds teachers are too "liberal", ask too many questions, and want to hear from "everybody". He also revealed that he had broken off an engagement with a school teacher. Two white jurors were not challenged on the first round: a woman who worked for the Taxi and Limousine Commission, which the prosecutor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hecker
...the parties are free to exercise their allotted peremptory challenges as they deem appropriate ( see e.g. People v. Mancini, 219 A.D.2d 456, 458, 631 N.Y.S.2d 151 [1st Dept.1995] ["given the inexactness of the art of jury selection, an attorney is entitled to rely on personal experience wit......
-
People v. Pena
...621; People v. Alston, 222 A.D.2d 294, 295, 636 N.Y.S.2d 270, affd. 88 N.Y.2d 519, 647 N.Y.S.2d 142, 670 N.E.2d 426; People v. Mancini, 219 A.D.2d 456, 458, 631 N.Y.S.2d 151, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 844, 634 N.Y.S.2d 453, 658 N.E.2d 231). Judicial deference is especially appropriate where, as ......
-
People v. Hecker
...the parties are free to exercise their allotted peremptory challenges as they deem appropriate ( see e.g. People v. Mancini, 219 A.D.2d 456, 458, 631 N.Y.S.2d 151 [1st Dept.1995] [“given the inexactness of the art of jury selection, an attorney is entitled to rely on personal experience wit......
-
People v. Wint
...v. Terry, 928 S.W.2d 879 [Mo.App. E.D.1996] [challenge of juror married to social worker not pretextual]; see also, People v. Mancini, 219 A.D.2d 456, 631 N.Y.S.2d 151, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 844, 634 N.Y.S.2d 453, 658 N.E.2d 231 [prosecutor's bias against teachers, based on personal experienc......