You are here: / / THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY ABOUT THE REASONS FOR...

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY ABOUT THE REASONS FOR A SITTING JUROR’S ABSENCE BEFORE SUBSTITUTING AN ALTERNATE JUROR; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial judge did not make an adequate inquiry about a sitting juror’s absence before substituting an alternate juror for the sitting juror (Juror Number 9). The defendant had moved for a mistrial on that ground:

… [T]he trial court failed to conduct the requisite “reasonably thorough inquiry” before substituting Alternate Number 1 for Juror Number 9 (see CPL 270.35 [2] [a]). When it ordered the substitution, the court had merely stated its “belie[f]” that Juror Number 9 had an “appointment for a family member,” and incorrectly claimed that Juror Number 9 had stated during voir dire that she had a medical appointment for her son in Rochester. Not only did the court provide only limited — and inaccurate — reasons to support a finding of unavailability, there is nothing on the record reflecting that it made any inquiry into Juror Number 9’s whereabouts or likelihood of appearing prior to ordering the substitution of Juror Number 9 with Alternate Number 1. On this record, the court failed to satisfy the requirement that a trial court conduct a “reasonably thorough inquiry” to ensure that its substitution determination is adequately informed … . People v Lang, 2020 NY Slip Op 03487, CtApp 6-23-20

 

You might also like
Florida’s Law of Restrictive Covenants Re: Non-Solicitation of Customers by a Former Employee Violates New York Public Policy by Favoring Employers at the Expense of Employees
VIOLATION OF PROBATION PETITION FACIALLY INSUFFICIENT, TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS NOT STATED (CT APP).
THE SCARANGELLA EXCEPTION TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY WHICH MAY APPLY WHEN A SAFETY FEATURE IS AVAILABLE BUT THE BUYER CHOOSES NOT TO PURCHASE IT, MAY BE APPLICABLE EVEN WHEN THE BUYER IS A RENTAL BUSINESS, SUPREME COURT’S AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S CONTRARY RULING REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
Defendant Implicitly Consented to a Mistrial on Two of Three Counts by Requesting a Partial Verdict
DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A STUN BELT DURING THE TRIAL WITHOUT THE JUDGE’S OR PROSECUTOR’S KNOWLEDGE; THE MAJORITY HELD THIS WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; A TWO-JUDGE DISSENT DISAGREED (CT APP).
YOGA INSTRUCTORS NOT EMPLOYEES.
FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND FAILURE TO CHALLENGE A FRISK DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SNOWMOBILE TRAILS IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK IS PROHIBITED BY THE “FOREVER WILD” PROVISION IN THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (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

THE MAJORITY HELD THE ISSUES WHETHER MOTHER HAD MADE ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC... THE SENTENCE FOR KIDNAPPING MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE FOR FELONY...