Summary
In Mitchell we held that defendant's waiver of a jury trial was not voluntary, but rather was compelled by defendant's belief that he could not receive a fair trial from the all white jury which resulted from the prosecutor's purposeful discrimination in exercising a peremptory challenge to exclude the sole black juror.
Summary of this case from People v. GreenOpinion
December 23, 1988
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Auser, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant was convicted after a nonjury trial of second degree assault, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. Defendant contends that he involuntarily waived his right to a jury trial because the prosecutor impermissibly exercised a peremptory challenge to exclude the sole black juror (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79). Defendant established a prima facie case that the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenge in a racially discriminating manner (see, People v Knight, 134 A.D.2d 845) and the prosecutor failed to proffer a satisfactory impartial explanation for his peremptory challenge. Defendant's waiver of a jury trial was not voluntary since the record reveals that the waiver was coerced by defendant's belief that he could not be fairly tried by an all-white jury.
Because a new trial is required, we do not address the remaining issues raised by defendant.