In People v. Hall , Michael Hall's lawyer questioned a prosecutor's disqualification of six black jurors.
A "Batson challenge" -- named after the seminal case of Batson v. Kentucky -- arises when an opponent is attempting "to remove prospective jurors on the basis of their membership in a constitutionally cognizable class." To that end, the objector is required to show the adversary's motives are suspect. Once that burden is met, the opposing party must then offer race-neutral reasons for its decisions.
The prosecutor in Hall's case contended that one juror seemed "scattered [and] loved money," two were "frequent churchgoer[s]," another "appeared at times not to be listening," another "hemmed and hawed before saying she could be fair ... [and] rolled her eyes," another "had no interest and didn't want to sit in this case," and, as to the last, the prosecutor just didn't get a sufficient opportunity to converse with the individual.
The Queens County Supreme Court thought those explanations were racially neutral and denied Hall's objection. But, because the lower court had overlooked the final steps of the process -- by not entertaining argument nor determining whether the prosecutor's explanations were "pretextual" and not "genuine" -- the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and sent the matter back for a hearing and report as to that final component.
And they're off! 
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Hall