Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hernandez v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionPeremptory ChallengesBatsonEqual Protection ClauseBatsonperemptory strikerace-neutral explanation

Facts

During jury selection in petitioner's criminal trial, defense counsel objected after the prosecutor used peremptory strikes against Latino venirepersons. As to the two jurors at issue, the prosecutor volunteered that he was uncertain they could accept the court interpreter's translation as final because of their answers, hesitancy, and demeanor during voir dire in a case involving Spanish-speaking witnesses. The trial court denied the Batson objection, and the New York appellate courts affirmed, accepting the explanation as race neutral. Petitioner challenged that ruling in the Supreme Court.

Issue

When a prosecutor strikes bilingual Latino venirepersons because their voir dire responses and demeanor suggest they may not accept the official translation of Spanish-language testimony, is that explanation race neutral under Batson, and may the state courts' finding of no purposeful discrimination stand? Also, when the prosecutor offers an explanation before any prima facie ruling, does the prima facie issue remain relevant?

Rule

Under Batson, once a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, any question whether the defendant first established a prima facie case is moot. At Batson step two, an explanation is race neutral if, assuming it is true, it is based on something other than the juror's race; unless discriminatory intent is inherent in the explanation, it is facially race neutral. The ultimate question whether the prosecutor acted with purposeful discrimination is a finding of historical fact reviewed with great deference and overturned only for clear error.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a robbery trial in Phoenix, defense counsel objected after the prosecutor used two peremptory strikes against Black veniremembers. Before the judge ruled on whether the defense had made a prima facie showing, the prosecutor immediately explained that both jurors had said they would "try" to follow the court's limiting instruction about disregarding suppressed statements and had appeared visibly uncertain. The judge then found no purposeful discrimination.

On appeal, how should the court treat the defendant's argument that the trial judge never expressly found a prima facie Batson showing?

Explanation. Once the prosecutor offers an explanation and the trial court rules on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary prima facie issue drops out of the case. The majority treated that question as moot because the trial court had already reached step three. So the appellate court should not reverse merely because the judge never expressly ruled on step one.