Attorneys for Payton Gendron, the white supremacist who killed 10 Black people in a racially motivated attack at a Buffalo supermarket in 2022, are mounting a controversial new defense: they argue his federal indictment should be dismissed because the grand jury that charged him lacked sufficient diversity. The move has ignited debate over jury representation, legal technicalities, and the broader quest for justice in one of the nation’s most notorious hate crimes of recent years.
On August 14, 2025, Gendron’s defense team appeared in federal court, contending that Black and Hispanic people, as well as men, were “systemically and significantly underrepresented” on the grand jury that indicted their client. Gendron himself did not attend the hearing, but his lawyers insisted that his constitutional rights were violated because the jury was not drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. According to court filings cited by ABC News and the Associated Press, the grand jury pool contained only about one-third of the expected number of Black and Hispanic/Latino jurors—a shortfall the defense claims is enough to invalidate the indictment.
“To illustrate this point, the grand jury that indicted Payton Gendron was drawn from a pool from which approximately one third of the Black persons expected and one third of the Hispanic/Latino persons expected,” his lawyers wrote in their motion. Exacerbating matters, they argued, was the fact that the data sources used by a private vendor to assemble the jury pool were not preserved, making it impossible to verify how the lists were compiled. “We don’t know what the vendor did,” Assistant Public Defender Sonya Zoghlin told the court. “More importantly, the vendor doesn’t know what he did.”
Gendron’s legal team is not only challenging the makeup of the grand jury but is also fighting to spare him from the death penalty. They have filed a separate, still-pending motion arguing that Gendron should be exempt from capital punishment because he was only 18 years old at the time of the massacre. Citing brain development research, they contend that his age should preclude the ultimate penalty.
For the families of those killed and wounded, the legal wrangling is a painful reminder of the stakes in this case. Gendron’s attack on the Tops supermarket in a predominantly Black neighborhood of Buffalo left 10 people dead—ranging in age from 32 to 86—and three others wounded. The shooter, who livestreamed his actions, has already pleaded guilty to state charges including murder and is serving a life sentence without parole. But the federal case, which carries the possibility of the death penalty, remains unresolved.
The prosecution, for its part, is pushing back hard. The U.S. Attorney’s office has dismissed the defense’s arguments as unfounded, both legally and factually. In their response, prosecutors stated that any disparities in the racial makeup of the grand jury were within accepted guidelines, and that the selection process itself is neutral. Jurors, they noted, are drawn from a variety of official lists, including voter rolls, driver’s license and tax records, disability rolls, and unemployment rolls. “The defendant is charged with killing 10 Black people and injuring three other individuals as part of a racially motivated attack on a grocery store. He now demands that the court dismiss the indictment against him because… the jury plan led to the underrepresentation of certain minority groups,” prosecutors wrote, as reported by ABC News.
During the hearing, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Vilardo questioned whether the underrepresentation could have been accidental rather than the result of systemic exclusion. “Can’t that be the result of an accident?” he asked, after noting that the addition of just two more Black jurors on the 60-person grand jury panel would have balanced the panel statistically. Assistant U.S. Attorney Caitlin Higgins argued that, at worst, the issue constitutes a “technical violation,” not grounds to dismiss the indictment. “The federal law governing jury selection doesn’t entitle the defendant to a perfect representation,” Higgins said.
Attorney John Elmore, who represents some of the victims’ families in related lawsuits, offered a pointed perspective on the defense’s strategy. “It is very ironic that attention to this problem is being brought out in this case, where Payton Gendron committed a racially motivated homicide,” Elmore told the Associated Press by phone after the hearing. “But this has been a persistent problem in our courts that needs to be addressed.” He acknowledged, however, that challenges to the racial makeup of juries rarely succeed, even though he often observes juries lacking in minority representation.
The underlying issue of jury diversity is not new. Defense attorneys argue that the exclusion of certain groups, including inactive voters, from the jury selection process contributes to systemic underrepresentation. Yet, as prosecutors and Judge Vilardo noted, courts have routinely rejected such challenges, especially when the disparities fall within accepted statistical ranges. Vilardo himself remarked that he was unaware of any successful motions to dismiss indictments on similar grounds in New York federal courts.
Still, the defense’s argument has shined a spotlight on the broader question of fairness in the criminal justice system. While Gendron’s lawyers are undoubtedly seeking any avenue to challenge the indictment and avoid the death penalty for their client, their motion highlights a persistent concern about how juries are assembled and whether they truly reflect the communities they serve. The irony—some might say audacity—of a defendant convicted of a racially motivated massacre now invoking the lack of minority representation on his own grand jury has not been lost on observers.
The federal trial, expected to begin in 2026, will not only determine Gendron’s fate but also serve as a test of how the justice system handles allegations of bias and underrepresentation. The Justice Department has made clear it will seek the death penalty if Gendron is convicted on federal hate crime and weapons charges. Meanwhile, Judge Vilardo is slated to hear further oral arguments on the motion to dismiss the indictment, as well as the separate request to take the death penalty off the table due to Gendron’s age at the time of the crime.
For the families of the victims, the legal maneuvering cannot undo the loss they have suffered. The pain of May 2022—when Gendron deliberately targeted a Black neighborhood and left a trail of devastation—remains raw. As the federal case moves forward, the community continues to grapple with questions of justice, accountability, and the meaning of representation, both in the courtroom and beyond.
As the legal battles play out, one thing is certain: the outcome of this case will reverberate far beyond the walls of the courthouse, touching on issues of race, justice, and the fabric of American society itself.
