You are here: / / Grand Jury Proceeding Not Tainted by Excused Juror’s Statements About H...

Grand Jury Proceeding Not Tainted by Excused Juror’s Statements About Having Arrested and Having Been Threatened by Defendant

The Third Department reversed County Court’s dismissal of indictments based upon a finding the integrity of the grand jury had been impaired.  A potential grand juror was excluded after stating he had arrested the defendant at least once and the defendant had threatened his family.  The Third Department wrote:

The prosecutor immediately excused this juror and instructed the remaining grand jurors to disregard and ignore the comment and to base their deliberations solely on the evidence provided by the sworn witnesses. While County Court found the prosecutor’s efforts in that regard to be inadequate, “the grand jury is presumed to have followed the prosecutor’s curative instructions, dispelling any prejudice to [] defendant”….  Furthermore, given the strength of the evidence supporting the indictments, the grand juror’s comment lacked the potential to prejudice the grand jury’s ultimate decision….   Accordingly, dismissal of the indictments was unwarranted.  People v Farley, 103105, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

You might also like
Superior Court Information Was Jurisdictionally Defective—The Offenses Were Not the Same As, or Lesser Included Offenses of, Those In the Felony Complaint
Children’s Hearsay Alleging Abuse by Father Was Not Corroborated; Change in Custody Should Not Have Been Granted
County Court Should Not Have Dismissed the Indictment on a Ground Not Raised by the Defendant Without Giving the People the Opportunity to Address the Issue
EMPLOYER’S ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON ITS APPLICATION FOR A BOARD REVIEW OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S AWARD OF BENEFITS WAS ADEQUATE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION; THE QUESTION CONCERNED WHEN THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTION TO THE RULING WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).
Purchaser of a Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility Was Not Required to Provide Financial Assurance for the Ongoing Performance of Corrective Action Imposed Upon the Prior Owner
Work-Related Call to Coworker Which Triggered Harassment by Coworker’s Husband Was Proper Basis for Workers’ Compensation Benefits
HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO A WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED ANNULMENT.
THE “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” WHICH MAY HAVE JUSTIFIED AWARDING CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE GRANDPARENTS APPLIED ONLY TO FATHER AND NOT AT ALL TO MOTHER; FOR THAT REASON THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Resentencing (Re: Postrelease Supervision) of Defendants Who Have Completed... County Court’s Jurisdiction Over Crimes Committed in Other Counties, Among...