Hernandez v. New York

Background

A man convicted of attempted murder challenged his conviction on the ground that the prosecutor excluded Latino potential jurors during jury selection. The prosecutor had used peremptory strikes against several bilingual jurors and explained he doubted they would accept the official interpreter’s translation for Spanish-speaking witnesses. The defense argued those strikes were racially motivated and violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment.

Reasoning

The Court applied the three-step test for jury strikes: the defendant may show a pattern suggesting discrimination, the prosecutor must offer a nonracial reason, and the trial judge decides whether discrimination actually occurred. The majority accepted the prosecutor’s explanation as race-neutral — based on how the jurors answered and their demeanor — and held that the trial judge’s finding that there was no discriminatory intent was not clearly wrong. The Court emphasized deference to the trial judge, who sees witness and lawyer behavior firsthand, and said disproportionate impact alone does not automatically prove racial intent.

Real world impact

This decision means prosecutors can lawfully strike bilingual jurors when they reasonably doubt those jurors will accept an official interpreter’s translation and when the trial judge finds the prosecutor credible. Defense teams face a tougher path to show race-based exclusion because appellate courts will defer to judges’ credibility findings. The ruling does not categorically approve excluding bilingual jurors in all cases and courts may reach different results on different facts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Stevens and Blackmun dissented, arguing that a strong prima facie showing and disparate impact should suffice unless the prosecutor’s justification truly rebuts it; Justice O’Connor concurred, stressing the clear-error review standard.