You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN...

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel’s for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted:

Turning first to defendant’s contention regarding prospective juror No. 4 from round three, she indicated that she knew Ruth Crepet, a physician that the People intended to call as a witness, as Crepet was her primary care physician of 15 years. Although the juror stated that she had a preconceived notion that Crepet would be truthful, she indicated that she could be impartial and fair at trial in that regard. This juror also stated that her husband was the victim of a robbery and, because the person “got off,” she was “a little cynical” about the criminal justice system, but “would try” to be impartial and thought “that [she] could be.” When asked if she could find defendant guilty, this juror stated “yes, you bet.” …​

While it is not necessarily an issue that Crepet was the prospective juror’s doctor … , her general equivocality is problematic. “Equivocal, uncertain responses, including statements that a prospective juror will ‘try’ or ‘hope’ to be impartial, are insufficient in the absence of [other] ‘express and unequivocal’ declarations that the juror will put any preconceptions aside and render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence” … . Here, while some of the prospective juror’s responses were unequivocal, many were not, and, as such, her responses as a whole do not demonstrate that her opinion would not influence her verdict … . Therefore, further inquiry was needed and, in the absence of said inquiry, it was error for Supreme Court to deny defendant’s challenge for cause … . People v Horton, 2018 NY Slip Op 04040, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT)

You might also like
DISSATISFACTION WITH JOB ASSIGNMENTS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR RESIGNING.
THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS AND WAS APPARENTLY ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT SUICIDE WHEN HE CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RESULTING IN THE ASSAULT CHARGE, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE SEVEN-YEAR SENTENCE FOR ASSAULT (THE MAXIMUM) SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE SENTENCE SHOULD BE REDUCED; A CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS VALID (THIRD DEPT). ​
Plaintiff Was Injured When an Anvil Fell Out of a Co-Worker’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Opened the Tailgate to Retrieve a Hat—Because Retrieving the Hat Was Work-Related, Plaintiff Was Unable to Sue the Defendant In Negligence (Failure to Warn Re: the Anvil) Under the Theory that Placement of the Anvil in the Vehicle Was Not Work-Related
The Term “Release” (Re Hazardous Substances) Did Not Apply to Migration of Hazardous Substance to Neighbor’s Property Underground​
PROOF OF OCCASIONAL DRUG USE IN THE REMOTE PAST AND REFERRALS FOR ALLEGED DRUG USE IN PRISON SEVERAL YEARS AGO WAS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE ASSESSMENT OF 15 POINTS FOR A HISTORY OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE (THIRD DEPT).
CPLR 205 (A), WHICH ALLOWS AN ACTION TO BE REFILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL, DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTIONS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER WHICH STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).
Amendment of Summons and Complaint to Fix Misnamed Party Allowed
LAWYERS FOR CHILDREN, WHICH IS CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE ATTORNEYS IN CHILD WELFARE MATTERS, HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE HOST FAMILY HOMES PROGRAM WHICH PLACES CHILDREN WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF ATTORNEYS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETTY SLAPS DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, ROBBERY SECOND REDUCED TO ROBBERY... WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO...