PEOPLE v. LENIX PART II
Appellate court must conduct comparative juror analysis, in which voir dire responses of non-stricken venire members are compared to those stricken by way of peremptory challenge, in order to determine whether race- or gender-neutral explanations for strikes were pretextual, when defendant relies on such evidence and the record is adequate to permit the comparisons. Comparative juror analysis must be performed, in the appropriate circumstances, on appeal even when such an analysis was not conducted in the trial court. Trial court's ruling that prosecutor's proffered reasons for peremptory challenge of African American venire member--that she was upset when she received a traffic ticket and that a family member had been killed in a gang-related murder--was supported by substantial evidence because it was reasonable to infer that venire member had negative feelings toward law enforcement and that she might sympathize with defendant in a case involving gang members, where prosecutor had previously accepted panel with an African American venire member, and where examination of jury selection as a whole did not support claim of racial bias.
Comments on PEOPLE v. LENIX PART II