People v. Hameed, 88 N.Y.2d 232 (1996)

Trial courts have discretion in structuring Batson hearings, and there is no automatic right to cross-examine prosecutors regarding their reasons for peremptory challenges.

Summary

Following a murder conviction, the defense appealed, arguing that a post-judgment Batson hearing was flawed because the defense was not allowed to fully cross-examine the prosecutors. The defense also argued that a private discussion between the trial judge and jury foreperson regarding sequestration violated their rights. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court has discretion in structuring Batson hearings and that the limited exchange with the jury foreperson was ministerial and non-prejudicial. The court affirmed the conviction.

Facts

Defendants shot two police officers, one of whom died. The first trial resulted in a conviction for attempted murder of the surviving officer but a hung jury on the murder charge. The second trial on the murder charge also resulted in a hung jury. The third trial resulted in a murder conviction. On appeal, defendants argued that the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike African-American jurors based on race.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division initially affirmed the conviction. Upon reargument, the Appellate Division vacated the affirmance and remitted the case for a Batson hearing. After the hearing, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor presented race-neutral, non-pretextual explanations. The Appellate Division then affirmed the convictions, and the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a hearing court at a post-judgment Batson hearing is required to allow the defense a full adversarial cross-examination opportunity of the trial prosecutors who provided Batson explanations under oath.

2. Whether a trial judge’s discussion with the jury foreperson alone concerning sequestration details violated the defendants’ right to presence or counsel.

Holding

1. No, because trial courts have discretion in structuring Batson hearings, and there is no automatic right to cross-examine prosecutors regarding their reasons for peremptory challenges.

2. No, because the discussion was ministerial and did not prejudice the defendants’ opportunity to defend against the charges.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the New York Court of Appeals has ever imposed a particular form of procedure for considering Batson challenges. The conduct of the inquiry is within the trial court’s discretion as long as the substantive principles of Batson are satisfied. The court emphasized that prosecutors are officers of the court with a duty of candor, and trial courts are generally entitled to rely on their representations. The court noted that, “[t]he presiding judges are capable of passing on the credibility of prosecuting attorneys without the benefit of cross-examination”. Regarding the discussion with the jury foreperson, the court found it related to ministerial aspects of sequestration and was “wholly unrelated to the substantive legal or factual issues of the trial”. The court held that the discussion bore no substantial relationship to the defendants’ opportunity to defend against the charges.