Prohibits peremptory challenges of prospective jurors based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation.
A00317 would amend New York’s Criminal Procedure Law to prohibit attorneys from using peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual orientation. The bill keeps the basic rule that peremptory challenges generally require no stated reason, but creates a new anti-discrimination limitation on their use.
If a party believes a peremptory strike was made for one of the prohibited reasons, the party may object before the jury is impaneled, or later if the basis for the objection was not reasonably knowable earlier. The striking party must then explain the reason for the challenge, and the court must decide whether the stated reasons are sufficient under the totality of the circumstances. If the court finds that one of the protected characteristics was a factor, the challenge is denied; the bill does not require proof of purposeful discrimination, only that the protected trait was a factor in the strike.
The bill would change New York criminal procedure by narrowing the use of peremptory challenges in jury selection and adding a formal objection-and-review process for suspected discriminatory strikes. It would affect prosecutors and defense attorneys in criminal cases, as well as trial courts, by requiring on-the-record explanations and judicial findings when a challenge is contested. The measure would apply to jury selections commenced on or after the effective date, 180 days after enactment.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to reflect a generally reform-oriented, anti-discrimination policy aimed at improving fairness in jury selection. The proposal aligns with broader efforts to prevent exclusion of jurors from protected groups and to make jury selection more transparent and accountable. No opposing or supporting statements are available in the provided materials, so the public or legislative sentiment cannot be measured directly from discussion history.
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s restriction on peremptory challenges, which traditionally allow attorneys to strike jurors without giving a reason. Supporters would view the bill as a necessary safeguard against discrimination in the courtroom, while critics may argue it limits trial strategy, increases litigation over jury selection, and places more discretion in judges’ hands. Another possible issue is the bill’s standard, which allows a challenge to be defeated if a protected characteristic was merely a factor, without requiring proof of purposeful discrimination, potentially making objections easier to sustain than under some existing frameworks.