People v. McCray
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
| Writing for the Court | JAMES G. STARKEY; Concerning the prohibition of challenges based on potential affinity |
| Citation | 429 N.Y.S.2d 158,104 Misc.2d 782 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Michael McCRAY. |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1980 |
Page 158
v.
Michael McCRAY.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Kings County, for the People; Sharon Litwin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, of counsel.
Leon Polsky, Legal Aid Society, New York City, for defendant; Joel Deckler, Brooklyn, of counsel.
JAMES G. STARKEY, Judge.
During jury selection in the captioned case, the defendant (a black male), by his counsel, moved for a mistrial on the ground that the prosecutor had consistently excused, by peremptory challenges, black and Hispanic candidates. At the time the motion was made, seven black candidates and one Hispanic had been excused in that
Page 159
fashion. That conduct, it was urged, constituted improper use of peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors on the ground of race. The prosecution denied excusing jurors on the ground of race and the motion was denied.The defense then moved, in the alternative, for a hearing and the opportunity to examine the prosecutor under oath concerning her intent and motives in the exercise of the challenges. That motion was also denied.
Thereafter, the trial proceeded to a conclusion and on April 28, 1980, the defendant was convicted of robbery in the first and second degrees. This decision is written to set forth the applicable law and the basis for the rulings referred to above.
The threshold problem confronted by the defense argument is that historically, the basis for the exercise of peremptory challenges is immune from inquiry (See Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219-20, 85 S.Ct. 824, 835, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965); Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 378, 13 S.Ct. 136, 139, 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892)). See also CPL § 270.25(1) 1.
It is true, as urged by the defense, that there is authority for the proposition that "it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws to try a defendant of a particular race or color under an indictment issued by a grand jury . . . from which all persons of his race or color have, solely because of that race or color, been excluded by the State . . ." (Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 477, 74 S.Ct. 667, 670, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954); See also Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 492, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1278-79, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977)). Perhaps more to the point, there is also authority for the proposition that the basis for the exercise of peremptory challenges is not totally immune from inquiry and that the systematic exclusion of all persons of a specific race or color from trial juries solely on the basis of race or color is, similarly, prohibited (See Swain v. Alabama, supra, 380 U.S. at 223-24, 85 S.Ct. at 837-38).
But the defense argument blurs some vital distinctions and lumps together two wholly different propositions. It is one thing to say that the law prohibits discrimination in jury selection based solely on race and quite another to say it prohibits challenging all candidates of the same race, religion or national origin as the defendant. 2 In the latter case, at least presumptively, the challenges are based not on race, religion or heritage, but on the ground of potential affinity with a defendant who shares the same background a time honored basis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCray v. Abrams, No. 1272
...made any statement with regard to her use of challenges. In a later opinion explicating its denial of the motion, People v. McCray, 104 Misc.2d 782, 429 N.Y.S.2d 158 (Sup.Ct. Kings County 1980), the court stated that the prosecutor had denied excusing jurors on the ground of race. Id. at 78......
-
People v. Thompson
...in the appellate courts of this State (but, see, People v. Kagan, 101 Misc.2d 274, 420 N.Y.S.2d 987; People v. McCray, (Sup.Ct.) 429 N.Y.S.2d 158). 2 CPL 270.25 (subd. 1) provides: "A peremptory challenge is an objection to a prospective juror for which no reason need be assigned. Upon......
-
McCray v. Abrams, No. 83 C 4406.
...that a relative or close friend was a victim of a crime. According to the trial court's opinion denying these motions, People v. McCray, 104 Misc.2d 782, 429 N.Y. S.2d 158, 159 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., Kings Co.1980), the prosecutor denied excusing jurors on the ground of race. The trial court denied ......
-
People v. McCray
...prosecutor would testify concerning the grounds for the challenges. The Trial Judge denied the motion and thereafter filed an opinion (104 Misc.2d 782, 429 N.Y.S.2d 158) in which he reasoned that the "potential affinity" between a defendant and a juror who shares the defendant's b......
-
McCray v. Abrams, No. 1272
...made any statement with regard to her use of challenges. In a later opinion explicating its denial of the motion, People v. McCray, 104 Misc.2d 782, 429 N.Y.S.2d 158 (Sup.Ct. Kings County 1980), the court stated that the prosecutor had denied excusing jurors on the ground of race. Id. at 78......
-
People v. Thompson
...in the appellate courts of this State (but, see, People v. Kagan, 101 Misc.2d 274, 420 N.Y.S.2d 987; People v. McCray, (Sup.Ct.) 429 N.Y.S.2d 158). 2 CPL 270.25 (subd. 1) provides: "A peremptory challenge is an objection to a prospective juror for which no reason need be assigned. Upon any ......
-
McCray v. Abrams, No. 83 C 4406.
...that a relative or close friend was a victim of a crime. According to the trial court's opinion denying these motions, People v. McCray, 104 Misc.2d 782, 429 N.Y. S.2d 158, 159 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., Kings Co.1980), the prosecutor denied excusing jurors on the ground of race. The trial court denied ......
-
People v. McCray
...prosecutor would testify concerning the grounds for the challenges. The Trial Judge denied the motion and thereafter filed an opinion (104 Misc.2d 782, 429 N.Y.S.2d 158) in which he reasoned that the "potential affinity" between a defendant and a juror who shares the defendant's background ......