Prohibits peremptory challenges of prospective jurors based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A317
SPONSOR: Cruz TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to prohibiting
peremptory challenges of prospective jurors based on race, color,
national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, reli-
gion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To ensure that peremptory challenges of jurors are not based on unlawful
discrimination
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one of this bill amdends subdivision one of section 270.25 of
the Criminal Procedure Law to clarify that only lawful peremptory chal-
lenges shall result in a juror being excluded from service.
Section two of the bill creates a new subdivision four in section 270.25
of the Criminal Procedure Law to provide a standard which peremptory
challenges to jurors must adhere to in order to be sustained by a judge.
Section three sets the effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
In 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States found in Batson v.
Kentucky that racial discrimination in the selection of jurors both
deprives the accused of important constitutional rights during a trial
and is devastating to the community at large as it "undermines public
confidence in the fairness of our system of justice."
Batson was specifically addressing the discriminatory use of peremptory
challenges in criminal cases. Unlike challenges for cause, which allows
for the disqualification of a potential juror for an explicitly stated
reason, peremptory challenges allow for striking a potential juror with-
out cause or reason. As was affirmed in Gaston, these challenges are
often intentionally or unintentionally discriminatory in nature, as the
ability to strike jurors without cause opens the door for that decision
to be based on conscious or unconscious bias. Theoretical and empirical
evidence across disciplines such as psychology, sociology, criminology;
and law agree, having concluded that peremptory challenges, by their
very nature, are fertile ground for the influence of bias on jury
selection.
The decision in Batson V. Kentucky led to the creation of the three-step
Batson challenge: first, the objecting party must establish a prima fade
case of racial or gender discrimination in the peremptory challenge, by
establishing an inference of discrimination. Next, the burden shifts to
the party making the peremptory challenge to provide a "neutral" expla-
nation of their challenge. Thirdly, the court must decide if such stated
reasons are actually the truth or a pretext for purposeful discrimi-
nation. If the peremptory challenge fails this test, it is struck down.
Beyond this requirement of neutrality, however there are no criteria for
evaluating explanations for peremptory challenges. In Purkett v. Elem,
the court went so far as to state that the explanations do not need to
be "persuasive or even plausible." Thus, despite this supposed remedy,
examinations of jury selection proceedings have shown that when either
the prosecution and defense are challenged on Batson grounds, a vast
majority of neutral justifications are accepted by judges, as legiti-
mate, It is unsurprising, then, that research has shown that the current
safeguards against such bias and discrimination are untenable: even when
attorneys are aware of the impact of bias, they are unlikely to admit
it, and even when judges scrutinize peremptory justifications for
evidence of discrimination, they are unlikely to find it.
This bill, recommended by an August 2022 report of the New York State
Justice Task Force, would follow the lead of other states such as Wash-
ington and California which have all recently put into place certain
safeguards to ensure that the protections of Batson are better enforced
during jury selection. It would create a "reasonable person" standard,
long recognized in other parts of statute and widely understood by both
courts and practitioners, to uphold peremptory challenges. Peremptory
challenges which, in the view of a reasonable person, were made as the
result of certain protected Characteristics of the juror will be struck
down. The bill also expands the list of protected classes, which under
the federal Batson standard applies only to race and gender, to also
include color, national origin, ancestry, gender identity or expression,
religion, religious practice, age, disability, and sexual orientation.
This more expansive list would mirror that contained in New York Unified
Court System's directives on voir dire (the preliminary examination of a
potential juror by a counsel or judge), which emphasize that a fair
juror does not base a decision on the list of protected classes enumer-
ated above.
This bill addresses New York's peremptories problem, in which criminal
convictions are not infrequently overturned based on evidence that a
prosecutor used racial criteria to select a jury that they believed
would more likely return a conviction (see People v. Morant for exam-
ple), head on. It represents a commonsense approach to ensure that the
protections of Batson, decades in place yet rarely enforced, are fully
upheld.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
None
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after it
shall have become a law and shall apply to all jury selections commenced
on or after such date.
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
317
2025-2026 Regular Sessions
IN ASSEMBLY(Prefiled)
January 8, 2025
___________
Introduced by M. of A. CRUZ -- read once and referred to the Committee
on Codes
AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to prohibiting
peremptory challenges of prospective jurors based on race, color,
national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression,
religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-bly, do enact as follows:
1 Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 270.25 of the criminal procedure
2 law is amended to read as follows:
3 1. A peremptory challenge is an objection to a prospective juror for
4 which no reason need be assigned. Upon any lawful peremptory challenge,
5 the court must exclude the person challenged from service.
6 § 2. Section 270.25 of the criminal procedure law is amended to add a
7 new subdivision 4 to read as follows:
8 4. (a) A party shall not use a peremptory challenge to remove a
9 prospective juror on the basis of such juror's race, color, national
10 origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, reli-
11 gious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation.
12 (b) A party may object to the improper use of a peremptory challenge
13 if such party believes that such challenge was made on an unlawful basis
14 in violation of paragraph (a) of this subdivision. After such objection
15 is made, any further discussion shall be conducted outside the presence
16 of the panel. The objection shall be made before the jury is impaneled,
17 unless information becomes known that could not have reasonably been
18 known before the jury was impaneled.
19 (c) Upon the objection made pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subdivi-
20 sion, the party exercising the peremptory challenge shall state the
21 reasons for exercising such challenge to the court.
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[] is old law to be omitted.
LBD01203-01-5
A. 317 2
1 (d) The court shall evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremp-
2 tory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances. The court
3 shall consider only the reasons actually given and shall not speculate
4 on, or assume the existence of, other possible justifications for the
5 use of the peremptory challenge. If the court determines that, in the
6 view of a reasonable person, the race, color, national origin, ancestry,
7 gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice,
8 age, disability, or sexual orientation of a juror was a factor in the
9 exercise of the peremptory challenge, then the objection shall be
10 sustained and the peremptory challenge shall be defeated. The court need
11 not find purposeful discrimination to sustain such objection. The court
12 shall explain the reasons for its ruling on the record.
13 § 3. This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after
14 it shall have become a law and shall apply to all jury selections
15 commenced on or after such date.
