79 N.Y.2d 317 (1992)
A defendant can establish a prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection based on a pattern of strikes against a cognizable racial group, even if jury selection is not yet complete, and the prosecution must then provide racially neutral explanations for those strikes.
Summary
These cases address whether a prima facie showing of discrimination in jury selection can be established before the process is complete and whether the defense established such a case based on the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges. In People v. Bolling, the court held that the defense did establish a prima facie case because the prosecution disproportionately struck African-Americans, some with pro-prosecution backgrounds. Since the prosecutor failed to provide racially neutral reasons, the judgment was modified for a hearing. In People v. Steele, the court held no prima facie case was established, affirming the lower court’s order.
Facts
In Bolling, after questioning the first 12 prospective jurors, five of whom were African-American, the prosecution struck four African-Americans and one person of Asian ancestry. The defense objected, claiming discrimination. The defense noted that two of the excluded African-Americans had ties to law enforcement. In Steele, after the first 21 jurors were examined, the prosecution had used three of its four peremptory challenges to strike three of the six African-Americans. The defense objected, arguing discrimination based on the defendant and the excluded jurors being African-American females.
Procedural History
In Bolling, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. In Steele, the Appellate Division affirmed, emphasizing that the prosecution did not challenge three other African-American jurors.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a defendant may assert a claim that peremptory challenges are being used for discriminatory purposes before jury selection has been completed.
2. Whether, in People v. Bolling, the defense established a prima facie case that the prosecution violated the Equal Protection Clauses by exercising peremptory challenges for discriminatory purposes.
3. Whether, in People v. Steele, the defense established a prima facie case that the prosecution violated the Equal Protection Clauses by exercising peremptory challenges for discriminatory purposes.
Holding
1. Yes, because the purpose of the Batson rule is to eliminate discrimination, not minimize it, and the wrong may occur after only one strike.
2. Yes, because the prosecution disproportionately struck African-Americans, some of whom had pro-prosecution backgrounds.
3. No, because the fact that the prosecution struck three of six African-Americans, without additional supporting facts, is insufficient to establish a pattern of exclusion.
Court’s Reasoning
The court held that a Batson challenge is appropriate when peremptory challenges are used for discriminatory purposes, regardless of the stage of jury selection, because the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the Equal Protection Clause, harming the excluded jurors and the community at large. The court emphasized that “[T]he exclusion of any blacks solely because of their race” is constitutionally forbidden. The court stated, “There are no fixed rules for determining what evidence will give rise to an inference sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” Factors include a pattern of strikes or discriminatory questions. The court found that in Bolling, the disproportionate number of challenges to African-American prospective jurors, coupled with the uncontested assertion that two had pro-prosecution backgrounds, raised an inference of discrimination. The court stated that in Steele, while the prosecutor used three of her four challenges against African-Americans, that alone is not enough to establish a pattern without other supporting facts.