Systematic Abuse: Latinos Take a Step Back Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991)
LUIS JASSO Durante la selección del jurado, el fiscal del estado de Nueva York utilizó impugnaciones perentorias para excluir a los posibles jurados Latinos.1 El abogado de Hernández se opuso a las impugnaciones perentorias, alegando que violaron la cláusula de igual protección.2 El fiscal continuó explicando que los miembros del jurado que hablaban español necesitarían un traductor y que era posible que no se adhirieran a la traducción.3 Esto podría afectar a los demás miembros del jurado y es la razón de su exclusión.4 El tribunal sostuvo que los fiscales habían ofrecido una explicación suficiente de raza neutral para las impugnaciones perentorias y rechazó la objeción de Hernández a la violación de la cláusula de igual protección.5
Dionisio Hernandez was convicted of attempted murder and possession of a weapon in a New York Court.6 During the trial, the state prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude several Spanish-speaking jurors.7 Defense counsel did not contest two of these challenges because the jurors in question had close family relationships with criminals.8 The other two, however, were the subject of a Batson challenge.9 The prosecutor did not wait for the defense to make a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson and instead volunteered his reasoning to the court.10 The prosecutor explained that the two jurors who were bilingual did not respond confidently when questioned.11 Instead, they would look away and respond hesitantly, especially when asked if they would adhere to the translator as the final arbiter, to which they replied that they would try.12 Accordingly, the prosecutor deemed it necessary to exclude these jurors to prevent their having an undue impact on the rest of the panel.13 The prosecutor denied any knowledge regarding the ethnicity of the jurors and denied any motive to remove them on a racial basis.14 Hernandez appealed.15 In deciding whether the peremptory challenges violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Court used the three-part test established in Batson v. Kentucky: First, a defendant must make prima facie showing that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race. Second, if the requisite showing has been made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the jurors in question. Finally, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination.16
1.Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 356 (1991). 2. Id. at 355. 3. Id. at 356-57. 4. Id. at 371. 5. Id. at 372. 6. Id. at 355. 7. Id. at 356. 8. Id. 9. Id. 10. Id. at 356. 11. Id. at 357. 12. Id. 13. Id. 14. Id. at 356. 15. Id. at 358. 16. Id. at 359.
4
