12.1 - II. Challenging The Jury Panel

• Jurisdiction: New York

II. CHALLENGING THE JURY PANEL

The jury is drawn from a panel selected as prescribed in the Judiciary Law, the Uniform District Court Act, the City Court Act or the Justice Court Act.¹⁸⁷² The first question the defense attorney must address is whether the assembled panel of potential jurors has been achieved in compliance with the law. Only the defendant may challenge the composition of the panel, and the challenge must be made by a written motion setting forth the facts constituting the basis for the challenge. If the prosecutor denies the existence of the alleged facts, the court must conduct a hearing at which witnesses may be called and examined by both parties. The defendant has the burden of proving prima facie that a defect in the selection procedure exists. Once such a defect is established, the burden is on the prosecutor to show that the jury pool was selected in a non-discriminatory manner. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court must determine whether to accept the panel or discharge it and require that a new jury pool be called.¹⁸⁷³

Counsel’s failure to file a challenge to a jury panel in writing and before jury selection commences constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s objection to the panel,¹⁸⁷⁴ and such failure will not preserve the issue for appellate review.¹⁸⁷⁵ A defendant is not entitled to a jury of any particular composition; rather, a petit jury must be drawn from a source fairly representative of the community.¹⁸⁷⁶ There is no requirement that petit juries mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the population, but the pools of names from which juries are drawn must not systematically and intentionally exclude identifiable groups in the community.¹⁸⁷⁷

--------

Notes:

^[1872] . CPL §§ 270.05(2), 360.10(2); N.Y. Judiciary Law art. 16 (Jud. Law).

^[1873] . CPL §§ 270.10(1), (2), 360.15(1), (2); Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625 (1972).

^[1874] . People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 387 N.Y.S.2d 62 (1976); but see People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848 (1976).

^[1875] . People v. Prim, 40 N.Y.2d 946, 390 N.Y.S.2d 407 (1976).

^[1876] . Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261 (1947); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953); Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).

^[1877] . See Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975); People v. Hernandez, 10 N.Y.2d 130, 218 N.Y.S.2d 625 (1961); People v. Chestnut, 26 N.Y.2d 481, 311 N.Y.S.2d 853 (1970); People v. Horton, 18 N.Y.2d 355, 275 N.Y.S.2d 377 (1966); People v. Hasson, 89 Misc....