You are here: / / JURY NOTE FOUND IN THE COURT FILE BY APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS, AFTER A RECONSTRUCTION...
,

JURY NOTE FOUND IN THE COURT FILE BY APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS, AFTER A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING, DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN A DRAFT WHICH WAS DISCARDED BY THE JURY, AS OPPOSED TO A NOTE OF WHICH COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, THEREFORE THE PROHIBITION OF RECONSTRUCTION HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE HANDLING OF JURY NOTES DID NOT APPLY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a substantive concurrence, determined, based upon a reconstruction hearing held by Supreme Court at the direction of the Appellate Division, a jury note found in the court file by appellate counsel was a draft that was discarded by the jury. Therefore the strict requirements surrounding notification of counsel of the contents of notes from the jury, and the prohibition of reconstruction hearings in that context, did not apply:

We recently held that where the record does not establish that counsel was provided meaningful notice of the contents of a substantive jury note, “the sole remedy is reversal and a new trial,” not a reconstruction hearing (People v Parker, 32 NY3d 49, 62 [2018]). However, the purpose of the reconstruction hearing at issue here was not to determine whether the court complied with the counsel notice requirements of CPL 310.30 and People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270, 276 [1991]). Instead, the hearing was to determine whether, in the first instance, Exhibit XIV reflected a “jury . . . request [to] the court for further instruction or information” (CPL 310.30) such that those obligations were triggered. Moreover, the finding of the courts below, following the reconstruction hearing, that Exhibit XIV was a draft note that the jury discarded is supported by the record and, thus, beyond our further review. People v Meyers, 2019 NY Slip Op 03658, CtApp 5-9-19

 

You might also like
THE APPELLATE DIVISION COULD NOT DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF A SUPPRESSION MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RELIED UPON BY THE SUPPRESSION COURT (CT APP).
SORA Hearing—Insufficient Proof of Drug or Alcohol Abuse
THE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CONTRACTS PROVIDED FOR THE SOLE REMEDY OF CURE AND REPURCHASE, PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENERAL CONTRACT DAMAGES DISMISSED (CT APP).
Plaintiff’s Proof of Reason for Termination of Treatment Was Sufficient to Get By Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion
DEFENDANT WAS NOT UNDULY PREJUDICED BY CODEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S SUMMATION-ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT WAS A SHOOTER AND THE CODEFENDANT WAS NOT; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT POINT TO THAT CONCLUSION AND THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED THAT SUMMATIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE (CT APP).
“Evidentiary Fact” Resolved In Favor of Defendant by a Jury In the First Trial May Not Be Contradicted by Evidence Presented in the Second Trial
No Constitutional Right to a Sua Sponte Inquiry Into Defendant’s Mental Health Before Allowing Defendant to Proceed Pro Se
The Acts of Applying for a Fake Non-Driver ID Card and Possessing the Fake Non-Driver ID Card Upon Arrest (Four-Months After Submitting the Application) Did Not Constitute a Single Criminal Venture—the Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy Did Not Preclude the Second Charge

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

THE SCARANGELLA EXCEPTION TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY WHICH MAY APPLY WHEN... DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE WAS...