HERNANDEZ V. NEW YORK 500 U.S. 352 (1991) CASE BRIEF

HERNANDEZ V. NEW YORK

500 U.S. 352 (1991)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Hernandez (D) asked for certiorari to review the New York state courts' rejection of his claim that the prosecutor in his criminal trial exercised peremptory challenges to exclude Latinos from the jury by reason of their ethnicity.

FACTS: D fired several shots at Charlene Calloway and her mother, Ada Saline. Calloway suffered three gunshot wounds. D missed Saline, and instead hit two men in a nearby restaurant. The victims survived the incident. During jury selection, D objected that P had used four peremptory challenges to exclude Latino potential jurors. After D raised his Batson objection, P did not wait for a ruling on whether petitioner had established a prima facie case of racial discrimination. P volunteered his reasons for striking the jurors in question. P explained that he felt uncertain that the two Latinos at issue would be able to listen and follow the interpreter. P felt there was a great deal of uncertainty as to whether they could accept the interpreter as the final arbiter of what was said by each of the witnesses, especially where there were going to be Spanish-speaking witnesses. When they answered they each looked away and said with some hesitancy that they would try, not that they could, but that they would try to follow the interpreter. D moved for a mistrial, which the trial court denied. P explained that he would have no motive to exclude Latinos from the jury because each of the complainants is Hispanic, and all P's civilian witnesses, were going to be Hispanic. The trial court again rejected D's claim. D was convicted and appealed. The New York Supreme Court noted that P had challenged the only three prospective jurors with definite Hispanic surnames. The court ruled that this fact made out a prima facie showing of discrimination. The court affirmed the trial court's rejection of D's Batson claim on the ground that the prosecutor had offered race-neutral explanations for the peremptory strikes sufficient to rebut D's prima facie case. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner