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.