You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE...

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE WAS ‘NOT SURE’ HE COULD BE IMPARTIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

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

The challenged panelist made a statement reflecting a state of mind likely to preclude the rendering of an impartial verdict (see CPL 270.20[1][b]), and the court did not elicit an unequivocal assurance that in rendering a verdict based on the evidence, the panelist could set aside any bias … . The juror expressly stated that he was “not sure” he could be impartial in a case involving a registered sex offender. His general statement about needing to hear the facts did not address his ability to overcome the specific bias he had expressed. “If there is any doubt about a prospective juror’s impartiality, trial courts should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have replaced one impartial juror with another”  … . People v Rodriguez, 2019 NY Slip Op 03734, First Dept 5-14-19

 

/by
You might also like
Testimony Which Could Have Added Relevant Evidence About the Nature of Plaintiff’s Work (Pre-Injury) and the Effects of the Injuries Should Not Have been Excluded as “Cumulative”
MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)
THREATENING TO CALL SOMEONE TO HAVE VICTIM BEATEN UP MET THE THREAT OF IMMEDIATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY.
THE ABSENCE FROM THE JURY CHARGE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE (ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT) REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SHELTER (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Identify Notice Witness, Erroneous Missing Witness Charge and Erroneous Preclusion of Evidence Required Reversal.
PROOF THAT DEFENDANT WAS SERVED WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY MONEY PAID BY PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WHICH HAD BEEN TERMINATED STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON NON-ACTIONABLE FUTURE EVENTS AND NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

JURY NOTE FOUND IN THE COURT FILE BY APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS, AFTER A RECONSTRUCTION... FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL...