Opinion
May 29, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (Vogt, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
The record of the hearing held on remittitur demonstrates that, when called upon to do so, the Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted the defendant at trial failed to recall and set forth the specific reason or reasons for the exclusion of each of the five black members of the jury panel with respect to whom he exercised peremptory challenges. While the prosecutor was able to state a series of generalized factors which he claimed to have employed in exercising his challenges, he was unable to relate these factors to this particular case (see, People v. Jenkins, 145 A.D.2d 225), and was therefore unable to articulate clear and reasonably specific reasons for the challenges required by Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79; see generally, People v. Scott, 70 N.Y.2d 420; People v. Hale, 151 A.D.2d 1013). Inasmuch as the prosecutor's testimony amounted to little more than a denial of discriminatory purpose and a general assertion of good faith (see, People v. Miller, 144 A.D.2d 94), the People failed to satisfy their burden of establishing racially neutral explanations for the challenges (see, e.g., People v. Mims, 149 A.D.2d 948; cf., People v. Cartier, 149 A.D.2d 524; People v. Bessard, 148 A.D.2d 49). Accordingly, the hearing court's determination that the People have failed to rebut the defendant's prima facie showing of racial discrimination is amply supported by the record (see, e.g., People v. Lawson, 145 A.D.2d 991).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.