Background
Cory D. Williams was tried in Orange County on criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. During jury voir dire, the People used peremptory strikes to remove all three Hispanic prospective jurors from the panel — one in the first round and two more in the second. Defense counsel challenged the People’s exercise of those challenges under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79, pointing out that the People had struck the only three Hispanic prospective jurors and arguing that the pattern revealed racially discriminatory intent.
The trial court required the People to articulate race-neutral reasons for each challenge — a step that, under Batson, is taken only after a prima facie showing of discrimination has been established. After the People provided their explanations, however, the court denied the Batson challenge on the ground that the defendant had not carried his prima facie burden, without proceeding to the third step of the Batson inquiry. Williams was convicted after a jury verdict. He appealed, and though the issue was unpreserved, the Appellate Division addressed it in the exercise of its interest-of-justice jurisdiction under CPL 470.15(6).
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. Under Batson, the framework for challenging racially motivated peremptory challenges involves three steps: (1) the defendant makes a prima facie showing of discriminatory purpose; (2) the burden shifts to the People to articulate a race-neutral reason; and (3) the trial court must determine whether the defendant has demonstrated that the People’s stated reasons were pretextual. Step 2 only begins once the trial court determines, at step 1, that the defendant has made a prima facie showing.
Here, the trial court’s decision to require the People to articulate race-neutral reasons necessarily implicitly found that the defendant had made a prima facie showing. Having reached step 2, the court was obligated to proceed to step 3 and assess whether the defendant had shown the People’s reasons to be pretextual. Instead, the court inexplicably reverted to step 1 and denied the challenge on the ground that the defendant had not met his prima facie burden — a determination that was contradicted by the court’s own prior actions. The Second Department held that this procedural error fundamentally corrupted the Batson inquiry and required a new trial.
Key Takeaways
- When a trial court requires the prosecution to articulate race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenges, it has — by necessary implication — found that the defendant made a prima facie showing under step 1. The court cannot then deny the challenge at step 1.
- Once step 2 occurs, the court must proceed to step 3 and assess whether the defendant has shown pretext; short-circuiting the three-step Batson process is reversible error.
- The Second Department exercised interest-of-justice jurisdiction (CPL 470.15[6]) to reach an unpreserved Batson error, signaling willingness to correct fundamental misapplications of the framework even absent proper preservation.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on the mechanics of the Batson framework in New York practice. Defense counsel who raise Batson objections should be vigilant in ensuring the full three-step process is completed on the record, and should object immediately if a trial court attempts to rule at step 1 after having already required step 2 responses from the prosecution.
For prosecutors in New York, the decision is a reminder that once you are required to provide race-neutral reasons — and you do provide them — the burden shifts to the defense to show pretext, and the court must assess that question. The case also signals that courts reviewing criminal convictions will look carefully at Batson methodology, using interest-of-justice review when the process went fundamentally wrong, even if defense counsel did not perfectly preserve the issue below.