From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Morgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 1, 1996
224 A.D.2d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 1, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.).


The prosecutor's explanation that he rejected two African-American female panelists because each had served previously as a juror in a drug sale case and he feared that they might be dissatisfied with the "possible lack of evidence" in this "buy and bust" case, where no buy money or stash was recovered, was facially neutral ( see, People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84).

Similarly adequate was his explanation that he believed that a third African-American woman, who worked with "911", might be affected by then existing tensions between police officers and employees of the "911" unit ( People v. Mancini, 219 A.D.2d 456, 458). If defendant "perceived something suggesting a discriminatory motive", it was incumbent upon him to make the court aware of his concerns during its factual inquiry (People v Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 110-111). In these circumstances, defendant did not meet his ultimate burden of demonstrating that the prosecutor had engaged in purposeful discrimination (see, supra,).

The record reveals that defendant's plea was knowing and voluntary ( People v. Garcia, 216 A.D.2d 36).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Morgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 1, 1996
224 A.D.2d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Morgan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GEORGE MORGAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 1, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 385