Legal Document

500 U.S. 352 111 S.Ct. 1859 114 L.Ed.2d 395 Dionisio HERNANDEZ, Petitionerv.NEW YORK. No. 89-7645. Argued Feb. 25, 1991. Decided May 28, Syllabus Counsel for petitioner Hernandez at his New York trial objected that the prosecutor had used four peremptory challenges to exclude Latino potential jurors. Two of jurors brothers who been convicted crimes, and no longer presses objection exclusion those individuals. The ethnicity one other two was uncertain. Without waiting a ruling on whether established prima facie case discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 79, 106 1712, 90 69 volunteered he struck these jurors, were both bilingual, because uncertain they would be able listen follow interpreter. He explained looked away from him hesitated before responding inquiry accept translator as final arbiter witnesses' responses; did not know which Latinos; motive Latinos jury, since complainants all civilian witnesses Latinos. court rejected Hernandez's claim, its decision affirmed by state appellate courts. Held: judgment is affirmed. 75 N.Y.2d 350, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621, Justice KENNEDY, joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, SOUTER, announced Court, concluding use in manner violating Equal Protection Clause. Under § three-step process evaluating an challenges, (1) defendant must make showing has exercised basis race, (2) burden then shifts articulate race-neutral explanation striking question, (3) determine carried proving purposeful discrimination. Pp. 358-372. (a) Since offered ruled ultimate question intentional discrimination, preliminary issue made moot. Cf. United States Postal Service Bd. Govs. Aikens, 460 711, 715, 103 1478, 1482, 403. P. 359. (b) strikes. here facial validity prosecutor's explanation, based something than race. While criterion exclusion—whether might have difficulty accepting translator's rendition Spanish-language testimony—might resulted disproportionate removal prospective it proof racially discriminatory intent or purpose required show violation See Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 252, 264-265, 97 555, 562-563, 50 450. This Court need address argument Spanish-speaking ability bears such close relation exercising challenge former ground violates equal protection, jurors' specific responses demeanor, their language proficiency alone, caused doubt defer official translation. That high percentage bilingual hesitate answering questions like asked and, thus, excluded cause fail race-neutrality test. reason rise level cause, but fact corresponds valid for-cause will demonstrate character. 359-363. (c) commit clear error determining discriminate ethnicity. A should give appropriate weight disparate impact acted with forbidden intent, even though factor conclusive inquiry. Here, chose believe reject assertion reasons pretextual. represents finding sort accorded great deference appeal, regardless state-court relates constitutional issue. See, e.g., 324 Liquor Corp. Duffy, 479 335, 351, 107 720, 729, 93 667. Deference makes particular sense this context largely turn evaluation credibility. there "independent" review court's denial claim rejected. Bose Consumers Union States, Inc., 466 485, 104 1949, 80 502; Miller Fenton, 474 104, 445, 88 405; Norris Alabama, 294 587, 55 579, 79 L.Ed. 1074, distinguished. took permissible view evidence crediting explanation. Apart could relied facts defended without being do so judge, Latinos, victims prosecution tended undercut any jury. Moreover, rely only three challenged can confidence identified verifiable legitimate challenges. 363-370. (d) does imply bilinguals jury service wise, cases. It may be, certain ethnic groups some communities, language, skin color, treated surrogate race protection analysis. Cf., Yu Cong Eng Trinidad, 271 500, 46 619, 70 1059. And, policy speak given regard trial's circumstances individual responses, found judge pretext racial 370-372. O'CONNOR, SCALIA, while agreeing clearly erroneous case, concluded KENNEDY's opinion goes further necessary assessing constitutionality asserted justification If, believes nonracial justification, erroneous, end 69, require justify strike unrelated requires juror juror's 372-375. J., delivered opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE JJ., joined. filed concurring judgment, BLACKMUN, dissenting opinion. STEVENS, MARSHALL, Kenneth Kimerling, City, petitioner. Jay M. Cohen, respondent. KENNEDY SOUTER join. 1 Petitioner asks us courts' rejection criminal If true, strikes violate Clause interpreted our (1986). We challenging if so, sustained. 2 respondent term "Latino" briefs Court. Amicus sides employ instead "Hispanic," parties referred court. Both words appear opinions. No attempt distinction we distinguish terms refer venirepersons terminology preferred 3 * comes direct petitioner's convictions counts attempted murder possession weapon. On Brooklyn street, fired several shots Charlene Calloway her mother, Ada Saline. suffered gunshot wounds. missed Saline hit men nearby restaurant. survived incident. 4 held Supreme Kings County. concern ourselves selection proper application Batson, handed down place. After 63 questioned 9 empaneled, defense counsel brother prosecuted same District Attorney's office probation violation. press respect concentrate 5 raised objection, wait Instead, question. explained: 6 "Your honor, my rejecting the—these jurors—I'm they're Hispanics. I didn't notice how many Hispanics called panel, feel very interpreter." App. 3. 7 interruption counsel, continued: 8 "We talked them long time; them, them. heart try it, felt deal uncertainty interpreter what said each witnesses, especially where going feel, when interpreter's translation could. They me hesitancy try, could, interpreter, main undue upon jury." Id., 3-4.1 Defense moved mistrial "based conduct Attorney," requested chance call supervisor courtroom judge's ruling. 10 Following recess, renewed motion, denied. Discussion continued, however, jury: 11 "[T]his involves complainants. Each Hispanic. All is, are absolutely reason—there's want involved Hispanic, certainly that." 5-6.2 12 interchange among attorneys, again claim. 12. 13 Appellate Division, noted remained uncertain, definite Hispanic surnames. out explanations sufficient rebut case. 14 Appeals also holding individuals deferring factual findings lower judges dissented, record, analyzed light standards adopt matter law, permitted. granted certiorari, 498 ----, 242, 112 201 (1990), now affirm. II 15 In outlined claims U.S., 96-98, S.Ct., 1722-1724. analysis set forth permits prompt rulings objections substantial disruption process. First, 96-97, 1722-1723. Second, requisite made, raceneutral 97-98, 1723-1724. Finally, 98, 1723. delimits consideration arguments A. 16 prompting As result, occasion rule departure normal course proceeding us. employment litigation Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 "[w]here done everything plaintiff properly really relevant." 403 (1983). principle applies Batson. Once becomes B 17 contends race-neutral. attorney's whether, assuming proffered law. addressing keep mind fundamental "official action unconstitutional solely results impact. . Proof Clause." 563, 450 (1977); see Washington Davis, 426 229, 239, 96 2040, 2047, 48 597 (1976). " 'Discriminatory purpose' implies more volition awareness consequences. decisionmaker selected least part 'because of,' merely 'in spite adverse effects identifiable group." Personnel Administrator Massachusetts Feeney, 442 256, 279, 99 2282, 2296, 60 870 (1979) (footnote citation omitted); McCleskey Kemp, 481 297-299, 1756, 1769-1770, 95 262 (1987). 18 neutral means juror. At step inquiry, Unless inherent deemed neutral. 19 argues ethnicity, that, consequence, exercise speaks Spanish. points correlation between York, tried. here, more, demeanor during voir dire testimony.3 20 prosecutor, rested neither intention nor stereotypical assumptions about bilinguals. articulated divided into classes: whose persuade testimony gave doubt. category include non-Latinos. well result actions per se 21 despite focus effect pure, language-based "[a]ny honest answered exact way." Brief 14. asserts due ignoring actual testimony. view, expected commitment 22 But knew criterion, alone discussed below, An relating classification purpose. 2296. turns intended consequences government classifications. actor adopted causing asserted, itself race-neutrality. Nothing shows following wanted prevent serving 23 face, excuse hesitation convinced inability foreign-language judge. 97, 1723, C 24 offers "[t]he [has] duty discrimination." resulting excluding answer relevance "[A]n invidious often inferred totality relevant facts, including fact, [classification] heavily another." 2048-2049. articulates members consider stated constitutes 25 trial, frank admission excusing related understand Spanish plausible, necessary, inference race-based rare coincidence happened key witness, community few others spoke tongue. were, influence deliberations accepted generalization come play. place population, interested group. common knowledge locality significant population fluent Spanish, chosen personal communication, speaking most precision power, define self. 26 factors deciding discriminate. For example, suggest alternative permitted advise discreet way concerns trial. persistence desire measure taken account challenge. 27 appeal: 28 "In recent sex 'a fact' entitled reviewing Anderson Bessemer 470 564, 573 [105 1504, 1511, 84 518] (1985). credibility, ordinarily deference. 575-576 1512-1513.]" supra, n. 21, 1724, 21. 29 treatment pure subject deferential standard, accords Hunter Underwood, 471 222, 105 1916, 1921, 85 222 (1985) (Court correctly committed provision animus); Rogers Lodge, 458 613, 622-623, 102 3272, 3278-3279, 73 1012 (1982) (clearly standard at-large voting system maintained purposes); Dayton Board Education Brinkman, 443 526, 534, 2971, 2977, 61 720 (affirming Appeals' conclusion Court's failure find operation dual school erroneous); Akins Texas, 325 398, 401-402, 65 1276, 1278, 89 1692 (1945) (great case); 113, 451, 405 suggests, VII. Pullman-Standard Swint, 456 273, 293, 1781, 1792, 72 66 (1982). 30 because, "largely credibility." typical decisive counsel's believed. There seldom much bearing issue, best attorney exercises juror, credibility lies "peculiarly within province." Wainwright Witt, 469 412, 428, 844, 854, 83 841 (1985), citing Patton Yount, 467 1025, 1038, 2885, 2892, 81 847 (1984). 31 precise formula findings, course, depends context. federal civil reviews district Federal Rule Procedure 52(a), aside erroneous. comparable exists cases, apply cases issues guilt. Maine Taylor, 477 131, 145, 2440, 2450, 91 110 (1986); Campbell 373 487, 493, 1356, 1360, 501 (1963); C. Wright, Practice 374 (2d ed. 1982 Supp.1990). habeas conviction, U.S.C. 2254(d) courts accord presumption correctness. 32 judgment. statute governs posture. justifying contexts, force connection Our indicated absence exceptional circumstances, relate 667 (1987); California Dealers Assn. Midcal Aluminum, 445 111-112, 100 937, 946-947, 233 (1980); Time, Inc. Firestone, 424 448, 463, 958, 969, 47 154 (1976); General Motors Washington, 377 436, 441-442, 1564, 1568-1569, 430 (1964) (quoting Norton Co. Department Revenue Illinois, 340 537-538, 71 377, 380, 517 (1951)); Bantam Books, Sullivan, 372 58, 68, 631, 638, 584 Lloyd Fry Roofing Wood, 344 157, 160, 204, 206, 168 (1952). "an lose character resolution dispositive question." 451 (citing supra ). 33 advocates understanding nature conduct. explains "[i]ndependent historical unless Then, independently determines Reply 17. accepts believed, nevertheless analysis, once settled, seems nothing left review. 34 seeks support 502 (1984) supra. dealt "actual malice," First Amendment precondition liability defamation "must independent record establishes malice convincing clarity." 514, 1967. similar confession voluntary. 110, 449. Those determination voluntariness involve legal, factual, elements. Miller, 115-117, 452-453; 501-502, 1959-1960; Harte-Hanks Communications, Connaughton, 491 657, 685, 109 2678, 2694, 562 (1989) ("The law"). Whether recognized, fact. 35 looks line decisions procedures. Many 1074 (1935), emphasized "analyze order enforcement right assured," id., 590, 580, "make disputed facts," Pierre Louisiana, 306 354, 358, 59 536, 539, 757 (1939). Whitus Georgia, 385 545, 550, 87 643, 646, 599 (1967); Avery 345 559, 561, 891, 892, 1244 (1953); Mississippi, 332 466, 68 184, 186, 92 76 (1947); Smith 311 128, 130, 164, 165, (1940). provided leaves room determinations, instance, (1945), said: 36 "[T]he transcript presents inconsistencies conflicts limiting number Negroes grand Therefore, trier heard full observed stand better opportunity reach correct existence type duty, conviction complaint procedure through obtained Fourteenth Amendment, calls examination denied, expressly substance effect, 589-90 [55 580]; 130 [61 165], conclusions judiciary, 358 [59 538]. leads 'unless lacking work unfairness war process,' Lisenba California, 314 219, 238 [62 280, 291, 86 166 (1941) ], protection. Ashcraft Tennessee, 322 143, 152, 153 [64 921, 925, 926, 1192 (1944) ]; Malinski 401, 404 [65 781, 783, 1029 ]." 1278-1279. 37 Other express Whitus, 646; Pierre, 534. 38 us, decline overturn "would pervert concept federalism," 499, 1959, searching findings. general matter, think reconcilable "reviewing entire [would be] firm mistake ha[d] committed." Gypsum Co., 333 364, 395, 525, 542, 746 (1948). itself, uncontradicted showed "no negro served petit [Jackson County, Alabama] memory lived lives." 591, 581; 560-561, 892; 186; 165. those, simply too incredible 39 discern views evidence, factfinder's choice cannot erroneous." 574, 518 review, Any sincerity. court, moreover, Given factors, subjective having leave "definite 542. D 40 Language identity membership community, share interact ways intimate bond. Bilinguals, sense, inhabit serve bring closer. Indeed, scholarly comment suggests people proficient languages times other. analogy high-hurdler, combines sprint jump accomplish third feat characteristics own, rather separate functions. Grosjean, Bilingual Competent Specific Speaker-Hearer, J. Multilingual & Multicultural say cognitive processes reactions susceptible easy generalization, "bilingual" describe uniform category. simple word complex phenomenon distinct categories subdivisions. Sanchez, Linguistic Social Context, 9, (J. Amastae Elias-Olivares 1982); Dodson, Second Acquisition Development: Theoretical Framework, 325, 326-327 41 today harsh paradox become enough English participate see, §§ 1865(b)(2), (English-language service), encounter disqualification knows second well. somewhat context: "Mere [a foreign] reasonably regarded harmful. Heretofore commonly helpful desirable." Meyer Nebraska, 390, 400, 43 625, 627, 67 1042 (1923). 42 Just shared foster differences source division. elicits response others, ranging admiration respect, distance alienation, ridicule scorn. Reactions latter initiate hostility. resolve difficult breadth defined purposes. face quite different justified 1059 (1926) (law prohibiting keeping business records specified violated rights Chinese businessmen); (striking law grade schools teaching English). clear, III objecting party's unnecessary proceedings came choosing prosecutor. 44 Affirmed. 45 whom SCALIA joins, agree plurality write separately farther needs Upon factfinding questions, straightforward. violation, prove intentionally discriminated against failed meet burden. unwavering holds motivated intent; establish (1976), "our embraced proposition act, reflects purpose, unconstitutionalsolely impact." "[A] alleges 'the discrimination.' 292, 1767, Keyes School Dist. 1, Denver, Colo., 413 189, 198, 2686, 2689, 548 (1973); Wright Rockefeller, 376 52, 56-57, 603, 605-606, 512 (1964). 49 recognized requirement explicitly selection. Thus, "[a] present proven systematic eligible jurymen proscribed unequal extent 403-404, 1279, (1945). Alexander 628-629, 1221, 1224-1225, 536 (1972); 549-550, 646-647, 589, (1935); Neal Delaware, 370, 394, 567 (1881). point itself: "As 'burden course,' 'to 93, 1721, quoting 646. Consistent jurisprudence, constitute forbids assumption [Hispanic] group unable impartially State's case." 89, 1719 (emphasis added). Powers Ohio, 499 1364, 1370, 411 (1991) ("the prohibits using otherwise qualified unbiased persons race"). Batson's 51 dangers allow mere effect. Such unending stream challenges: 52 "A [state action] designed ends invalid, absent compelling practice benefits burdens another far reaching raise serious about, perhaps invalidate, whole range tax, welfare, public service, regulatory, licensing statutes burdensome poor average black affluent white." 248, 2051. 53 way, runs risk turning full-blown statistical expert classification. addition creating unacceptable delays process, antithetical Absent violative Clause, free reason, all. "as Blackstone says, arbitrary capricious right; freedom, fails purpose." Lewis 146 378, 136, 139, 1011 (1892) (internal quotations omitted). 54 3-4. truly strikes, therefore closely tied significantly correlated implicate is. Disproportionate may, disbelieve 1721. if, matter. 56 dissenting. 57 dissent, essentially STEVENS Part post. 58 MARSHALL characterize "discriminatory By definition, intent. forward peremptories additional animus errs concludes defendant's whenever advances nonpretextual facially discriminatory. (1986), "a 'pattern' included venire discrimination" satisfy "Once showing, State explanation." Ibid. succeeded establishing dispel succeed "need cause." However, identify 'legitimate reasons' "related tried" sufficiently persuasive "rebu[t] 20, 20. avowed rarely qualify legitimate, 265-266, 563-564, 2048, easily accommodated less drastic venireperson generally tried." 1724; Albermarle Paper Moody, 422 405, 425, 2362, 2375, 280 (1975) (availability nondiscriminatory motive). Richmond J.A. Croson 488 469, 507, 706, 728, 854 (State distinctions equally effective alternatives). classification, frivolous illegitimate suffice Cleburne Living Center, 473 432, 3249, 313 (1985); 452, 3260 (STEVENS, concurring); Western Southern Life Insurance Equalization 648, 677, 101 2070, 2087, 514 (1981) dissenting). 62 insubstantial impact, discriminatory, "the 'would vain illusory requirement.' 1724 598, 584, (1935)). mistakenly compelled ante, 359-360, 364. overlooks, purpose" characterizes violations sometimes objective consistent decisionmaker's belief entirely benign. "Frequently probative actually happened," 253, 2054 concurring), Yick Wo Hopkins, 118 356, 1064, 220 (1886); Gomillion Lightfoot, 364 339, 105, (1960); Sims 389 404, 407, 523, 634 Turner Fouche, 396 346, 359, 532, (1970). bright critical appears believe.1 focusing powerful requiring provide additional, motive, imposed added generate Neither holdings demand heightened quantum proof. 64 Applying principles above disputes Even rebuttal advanced good faith, insufficient existing animus. reasons. inevitably venirepersons. "race-neutral" nonetheless proxy practice. means. jurisdictions, instructed evidence; attention disagreements resolved Perez, 658 F.2d 654, 662-663 (CA9 1981).2 Third, substantiated supported cause. challenge, disqualify advancing considered render combination, Accordingly, respectfully dissent. later jurors: ". answers hard pressed thing ask Judge were—I thought trouble, although it. just lack eye contact it." 6. reasoning motivation. charge fear sympathize defendant, stated: "The Hispanics, said, therefore, testifying People, sympathy [it] seem logical look throw off don't logic wrong. sorry guy who's bullet hole him, he's they'll shooter." 8. Respondent cites 654 1981), illustrates problems arise occurred: "DOROTHY KIM (JUROR NO. 8): Your Honor, question? I'm La Vado [sic]. You bar. "THE COURT: permit directly. you phrase your me— KIM: understood restroom. restroom bar undercover. These matters consider. misunderstanding witness testified to, tell we'll the— [sic]—I meant She translates "MS. IANZITI: first place, English. am certified You're idiot." 662. questioning, none conversations occurred restroom." 663. she 'it's idiom' 'you're idiot,' dismissed (1976) (concurring opinion), "purposeful contexts. "Although differing evidentiary considerations. pays indeed, vary describing actor. "My making observation nearly bright, critical, reader assume. agree, every time shown. hand, disproportion dramatic 339 [81 125], 356 [6 1064], phrased effect." 253-254, 2054. solution translator, person hears witness' simultaneously English, thus permitting hear

Classification Label: 1