People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625 (2010)
Under Batson, a trial court’s determination regarding whether a peremptory challenge was discriminatory is given great deference; however, there must be support in the record for the finding of discrimination.
Summary
This case addresses the application of the three-step Batson protocol for assessing whether peremptory challenges were used to exclude potential jurors based on race. The defendant, Hecker, was convicted of selling a controlled substance. A key issue was whether the defense counsel’s reasons for excluding an Asian-American prospective juror were pretextual. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that the trial court’s conclusion that the defense counsel’s reasons were pretextual was not supported by the record, particularly considering the limited time afforded for voir dire and the counsel’s willingness to question the juror further.
Facts
Hecker was indicted for selling crack cocaine to an undercover officer. During jury selection, the trial court limited each party to ten minutes for voir dire. During the second round of jury selection, defense counsel struck Chan, an Asian-American juror, whom she had not questioned. The prosecution raised a reverse Batson challenge, arguing that the defense was striking Asian jurors. Defense counsel stated that Chan seemed “austere” and, due to time constraints, she hadn’t been able to question her adequately.
Procedural History
The trial court found the defense counsel’s reasons for striking Chan to be pretextual and seated Chan on the jury. Hecker was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in concluding at step three of the Batson analysis that the defense counsel’s reasons for excluding one Asian-American prospective juror were pretextual?
Holding
No, because the trial court’s finding of pretext was not supported by the record, especially given the limited time for voir dire and counsel’s willingness to question the juror further.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found no support in the record for the trial court’s finding of pretext. The defense counsel stated that she felt Chan appeared “austere in her demeanor and her temperament” and, due to the limited ten minutes for voir dire, she was unable to question everyone and thus struck Chan because she didn’t know much about her. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the limited time for voir dire significantly restricted the defense counsel’s ability to question potential jurors. The court noted that the defense counsel’s lack of questioning was not necessarily indicative of bias, but rather a consequence of the severe time constraints imposed by the trial court. Defense counsel’s strategy was not to avoid a particular class of prospective jurors based on race but to remove jurors whom either she or both parties did not have time to address. The Court emphasized that appellate courts accord great deference to trial judges’ step three determinations; however, this specific ruling was erroneous.
The court also stated that, as a matter of New York law, “the unjustified denial of a peremptory challenge violates CPL 270.25 (2) and requires reversal without regard to harmless error.”