People v. Bridgeforth, 34 N.Y.3d 570 (2020)
A prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors based on their skin color violates the Equal Protection Clause under the New York State Constitution and Civil Rights Law, and is subject to a Batson challenge.
Summary
In a criminal case, the defendant, a dark-complexioned African-American male, challenged the prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes to exclude potential jurors, claiming discrimination against dark-skinned women. The trial court initially did not find that the defendant met his initial burden of showing discrimination. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the exclusion of jurors based on skin color is a form of discrimination that triggers the protections of Batson v. Kentucky. The Court found that skin color is a cognizable basis for a Batson challenge under the New York State Constitution and Civil Rights Law, separate from race. Because the prosecutor failed to provide a non-discriminatory reason for excluding a dark-skinned female juror, the Court held that the trial court erred and ordered a new trial.
Facts
The defendant, a dark-complexioned African-American male, was charged with robbery. During jury selection (voir dire), the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude a number of potential jurors, including dark-skinned women. Defense counsel made a Batson challenge, arguing that the prosecutor was systematically excluding black or dark-colored female jurors, including Guyanese women. The prosecutor provided reasons for excluding some jurors but failed to provide a reason for excluding one particular dark-skinned Indian-American woman. The trial court did not seat the juror at issue and did not explicitly rule on whether the defendant had made a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson.
Procedural History
At trial, defense counsel made a Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes. The trial court did not make a step one finding, but the prosecutor provided reasons for some of the strikes. The trial court found that the prosecutor had valid reasons for the strikes, and did not seat the juror at issue. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether skin color is a cognizable basis for a Batson challenge under the New York State Constitution and Civil Rights Law.
2. Whether the defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination when challenging the exclusion of jurors based on skin color.
3. Whether the prosecutor’s failure to provide a non-discriminatory reason for excluding a potential juror violated Batson.
Holding
1. Yes, skin color is a cognizable basis for a Batson challenge because it is a protected characteristic under New York’s Constitution and Civil Rights Law.
2. Yes, the defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination by alleging that the prosecutor was excluding dark-skinned women.
3. Yes, the prosecutor’s failure to provide a non-discriminatory reason violated Batson.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on the Batson framework, which prohibits the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race or other protected characteristics. The Court found that the New York State Constitution and Civil Rights Law explicitly recognize color as a classification distinct from race, indicating that discrimination based on skin color is prohibited. “The Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution provides: ‘No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state’ (NY Const, art I, § 11 [emphasis added]).” The Court distinguished this case from prior cases involving challenges to peremptory strikes based on broad classifications like