You are here: / / COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPANELED AN ANONYMOUS JURY (CT APP).

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPANELED AN ANONYMOUS JURY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals affirmed the appellate division, holding that County Court should not have empaneled an anonymous jury:

The trial court committed reversible error by empaneling an anonymous jury. Assuming that trial courts may, under certain circumstances, anonymize jurors, here County Court acted without any factual predicate for the extraordinary procedure. Indeed, the trial court expressly based its decision to empanel an anonymous jury on anecdotal accounts from jurors in unrelated cases and, then, exacerbated the error by taking “no steps to lessen the potential prejudice” to defendants … . People v Flores, 2018 NY Slip Op 08540, CtApp 12-13-18

 

You might also like
Defendant Entitled to Jury Charge on Extreme Emotional Disturbance Despite Lack of CPL 250.10 Notice
Lease Provision Allowing the Landlord to Recover Attorney’s Fees in an Action Against the Tenant Triggered the Tenant’s Reciprocal Right to Recover Attorney’s Fees Against the Landlord Pursuant to Real Property Law 234 Should Tenant Prevail in the Action
POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP).
FOREIGN DEFENDANTS’ USE OF A NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT BANK ACCOUNT IN A SWISS BANK PROVIDED JURISDICTION OVER A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BANK BY A SAUDI NATIONAL.
Plea to a Lesser Offense Need Not Be Supported by Facts Admitted in a Plea Allocution—Court’s Unnecessary Attempt to Have Defendant Admit to Facts in Support of All of the Elements of the Lesser Offense Required Vacation of the Plea
Admission in Evidence of Defendant’s Statements About Prior Murders Did Not Rise to a Constitutional Injury—Harmless Error Doctrine Applied
THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IN THE REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE PUBLIC POLICY RULE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IMPOSES REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY OR REMEDIES (CT APP).
WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

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

PETITIONER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AFFORDED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE UNAUTHORIZED... QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION...