Call Now For Help


Prosecutor Discriminates against African-Americans in Jury Selection


by in Criminal Defense

State v. Saladin Thompson, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-5366-06T3 (March 25, 2010) – “[W]e are satisfied that defendant established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges to excuse seven African-American prospective jurors. We therefore remand to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508, 537 (1986)….

[D]efendant satisfied the first step of the three-step Gilmore test and the court should have required the prosecution to proceed to articulate clear and reasonably specific explanations for the excusal of the seven African-American jurors. Id. at 537. Of her twelve peremptory challenges provided by Rule 1:8-3(d), the prosecutor excused nine jurors, seven of whom were African-Americans, as is defendant.

The use of seven of a total of nine peremptory challenges the prosecution exercised to excuse African-Americans is evidence that the prosecutor excused a cognizable class of prospective jurors. The excusal of these seven African-Americans is also evidence that the prosecutor used a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges against this cognizable group. Id. at 535-36.

We do not agree with the argument advanced by the State that the proportionality analysis is based upon the total number of African-Americans finally seated, which in this case was five. While the composition of the jurors ultimately seated is a factor the court may consider in the third step of the process in weighing whether a defendant has met the ultimate burden of proving impermissible discrimination, it is not a factor that weighs against the defendant insofar as establishing a prima facie case. Id. at 536.”






*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey | Rating Methodology | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
The information contained in on this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio or the information, products, or services contained on for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
The results of verdicts and settlements mentioned herein are not typical. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

Site by Law Firm Website Designers / Criminal Defense/DWI Lawyer Marketing.