A Queen’s man charged with robbery will receive a new trial because the judge erred in allowing prosecutors to discriminate in the selection of jurors in violation of federal and state law, New York’s highest court has ruled.
During jury selection, the prosecutor in the trial of Joseph Bridgeforth dismissed five prospective jurors, all black or dark-complexioned women, including an Indian-American woman. Attorneys for Bridgeforth challenged the strikes, asserting that the state discriminated against dark-colored women. The prosecutor supplied non-discriminatory explanations for four of the exclusions but failed to provide a reason for striking the juror at issue. Still, the juror was not seated.
Bridgeforth, who is African-American, charged that the strikes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids a prosecutor to challenge potential jurors on the basis of their race, sex or ethnicity. The move, Bridgeforth charged, also contravened the New York Constitution, which forbids denying someone his or her civil rights because of race, color, creed or religion.
The Court of Appeals agreed. “Persons with similar skin tones are often perceived to be of a certain race and discriminated against as a result, even if they are of a different race or ethnicity,” Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam wrote on behalf of five of her colleagues in a ruling dated Dec. 22. “That is why color must be distinguished from race.”
According to the court, the distinction between color and race is necessary to serve the purpose of Batson v. Kentucky, a 1986 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that provides a framework for challenging use of peremptory strikes, which allow lawyers to dismiss prospective jurors without saying why. Lawyers have used such strikes to get rid of jurors based on their race or ethnicity even though such discrimination is unconstitutional.
In Batson, a black man in Kentucky was convicted of burglary and receipt of stolen goods. At trial, the prosecutor used his peremptory to strike all black persons in the pool of prospective jurors, and a jury composed solely of white people was selected.
In an opinion by Justice Powell, the court in Batson outlined a three-step protocol for such situations. First, the defendant must show that the prosecutor used the strike the discriminate. If that showing is made, the burden shifts to the state to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for striking the juror. Third, the trial court must determine whether the reason proffered for the strike constitutes an excuse to discriminate, and whether party challenging the strike has shown purposeful discrimination.
At Bridgeforth’s trial, the discussion during jury selection proceeded as follows, according to the record before the court:
The district attorney has now preempted all the female black women and I don’t believe that there are valid reasons other than their face and their gender that they have been challenged,” [defense counsel said]. The People responded, ‘Well, Judge, we are either going to do Guyanese or African American, can’t do black or skin color, Judge.’
“Where individuals are excluded from jury service on the basis of their skin color, the defendant is denied the right to a trial by a jury of his or her peers, which is meant to reflect the community in which the defendant lives,” Judge Abdus-Salaam noted.