You are here: / / Denial of For Cause Challenge to Juror Required Reversal

Denial of For Cause Challenge to Juror Required Reversal

The Third Department determined the trial court erred in denying defendant’s “for cause” challenge to a juror:

“Prospective jurors who make statements that cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict, and who have given less-than-unequivocal assurances of impartiality, must be excused” … . Here, during jury selection, juror No. 153 stated that he was “very uncomfortable” about the alleged use of a firearm during the commission of the charged crimes. When asked by defense counsel if his stated discomfort was something that would affect his ability to keep an open mind, juror No. 153 responded, “It might. I can’t say for sure what it is, but it’s a concern to me.”

After questioning of this panel had concluded, and out of the presence of the prospective jurors, defense counsel challenged juror No. 153 for cause. County Court, stating that defense counsel failed to ask any follow-up questions of juror No. 153 at the time the juror made the subject statements in order to make out an appropriate foundation for cause, denied the challenge. Having heard the statements by juror No. 153, County Court should have either granted the challenge for cause or conducted a further inquiry of that juror and obtained express, unequivocal assurances on the record of his impartiality … . People v Young, 2014 NY Slip Op 04975, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

You might also like
Family Court Cannot Review Support Magistrate’s Order in Absence of Specific Objection
HERE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS WAS PROHIBITED BY A LOCAL LAW; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE BIAS OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING BOARD INFECTED THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD (WHICH ENACTED THE LAW); THOSE ALLEGATIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LOCAL LAW VALID (THIRD DEPT).
THE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT REFUTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND WERE ADEQUATELY PLED (THIRD DEPT). ​
NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR DRIVEN BY A FORMER RESIDENT OF THE FACILITY.
THE USE OF ELECTRONIC LOGGING DEVICES (ELD’S) TO MONITOR THE HOURS AND PLACES OF OPERATION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES (CMV’S) AND THE INSPECTION OF ELD’S BY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL DURING ROADSIDE SAFETY INSPECTIONS CONSTITUTE VALID ADMINSITRATIVE SEARCHES (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT HAD THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE CARRIER’S CONSULTANT, WHO DETERMINED CLAIMANT SUFFERED A 40% SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE, DESPITE THE FACT CLAIMANT NEVER FILED A COMPETING MEDICAL OPINION (THIRD DEPT)
CITY ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REQUIRING A RENTAL PERMIT AND LIMITING OCCUPANCY OF RENTAL UNITS TO A “FAMILY” AS DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PROPERLY AWARDED 100% SLU FOR FOUR AMPUTATED FINGERS AND AN ADDITIONAL 100% SLU FOR THE REATTACHED NONFUNCTIONAL THUMB.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Adverse Possession Criteria Explained Plaintiffs Could Not Demonstrate the Alleged Malpractice Was Proximate Cause...