You are here: / / JUROR WHO ASKED TO BE EXCUSED AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DELIBERATIONS BECAUSE...

JUROR WHO ASKED TO BE EXCUSED AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DELIBERATIONS BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM HER ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED AS GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the appellate division, determined a juror who asked to be excused after four days of deliberations should have been discharged as “grossly unqualified.” The alternate jurors had been excused. The juror repeatedly told the judge she could not separate her emotions from her analysis of the facts. The defendant was charged with stabbing the victim 38 times:

Pursuant to CPL 270.35 (1), “[i]f at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . . the court must discharge such juror. . . . If no alternate juror is available, the court must declare a mistrial.”

As explained in People v Buford, a juror is grossly unqualified “only ‘when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict'” (69 NY2d at 298 … ). * * *

…[ T]he record reveals that it was obvious the juror possessed a state of mind preventing her from rendering an impartial verdict and thus, she was “grossly unqualified to serve.” The juror declared forthrightly that she could not separate her emotions from her ability to deliberate and was incapable of fulfilling her sworn duty to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial and the law. Compelling the juror to resume deliberations could not cure the fundamental problem with her state of mind. The trial court’s implicit conclusion that the juror did not “possess[] a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict” (Buford, 69 NY2d at 298 …) was erroneous. People v Spencer, 2017 NY Slip Op 05118, CtApp 6-22-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUROR WHO ASKED TO BE EXCUSED AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DELIBERATIONS BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM HER ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED AS GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL, GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED, JUROR WHO ASKED TO BE EXCUSED AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DELIBERATIONS BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM HER ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED AS GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED)/GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED (JURORS, CRIMINAL LAW, JUROR WHO ASKED TO BE EXCUSED AFTER FOUR DAYS OF DELIBERATIONS BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT SEPARATE HER EMOTIONS FROM HER ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED AS GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED)

You might also like
COUNTY COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING BEFORE A JUDICIAL HEARING OFFICER TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION.
No Prejudice from Loss of Hand-Written Police Report (Rosario Material)/Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Discretion In Denying Request for Adverse Inference Jury Charge
THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TPVA) IS A CRIMINAL COURT WHICH CANNOT ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WHEN A DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPEAR FOR A TRAFFIC-INFRACTION TRIAL; IN CONTRAST, A TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TVB) IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, NOT A CRIMINAL COURT, AND MAY ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (CT APP).
REINSURANCE POLICIES TO BE INTERPRETED USING STANDARD CONTRACT PRINCIPLES, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OR RULE OF CONSTRUCTION CONCERNING WHETHER A COVERAGE CAP INCLUDES ONLY LOSS, OR INCLUDES BOTH LOSS AND LITIGATION COSTS (CT APP).
RULE THAT RETIRED JUDGES WHO RETURN TO THE BENCH CANNOT RECEIVE BOTH A SALARY AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS IS NEITHER ILLEGAL NOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE FROM A FARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A MOTORIST WHO STOPPED TO HELP THE CALF AND WAS STRUCK.
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE’S CASE TO PROVE INTENT.
Re-Sentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act—Court Does Not Have Authority to Make Sentences Concurrent if Original Sentences Consecutive

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE TO FLORIDA PROPERLY DENIED, INSUFFICIENT... DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH...