You are here: / / FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED...

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Departing, ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted:

The challenged panelist stated that he could not be “fully fair” if defendant did not testify and “defend himself,” and that it might be difficult for him to acquit a defendant who did not testify, because then “we only get one side.” This reflected 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 he would set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence … . When the court asked if he would “hold it against” defendant if defendant did not testify, he responded “No, not hold it against him, but —- I don’t know.” When the court further asked whether defendant’s failure to testify would trouble the panelist to the point where he could not give defendant a fair trial, he responded “I think I’ll be able to give him a fair trial.” Although expressions such as “I think” are not disqualifying, here the panelist’s responses, viewed as a whole, fell short of the required express and unequivocal declarations … . “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 Laverpool, 2020 NY Slip Op 03745, First Dept 7-2-20

 

You might also like
CITIBANK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER AN ACCOUNT STATED THEORY TO COLLECT A CREDIT CARD DEBT.
Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the 90-Day Period for Filing a Note of Issue
Attempted Criminal Possession of a Weapon Third Degree Is Not a Violent Felony When It is the Top Count of an Indictment—It is a Violent Felony Only If It Is a “Lesser Included” Offense
Labor Law 200 Action Is Not Based Upon Supervision or Control of Plaintiff’s Work, But Rather on the Property Owner’s Creation or Failure to Remedy a Dangerous Condition
CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL.
THE COURT’S FAILURE TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT ON ONE INDICTMENT REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEAS TO THAT INDICTMENT AND ANOTHER INDICTMENT FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER WALKING ON THE REBAR GRID WAS AN INHERENT RISK OF THE JOB AND WHETHER THE GRID WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED A DIRECTED VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF.

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

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT COMPLETED HIS SENTENCE HE IS ENTITLED TO A DETERMINATION... DEFENDANT’S INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY REQUIRED A MORE PROBING COLLOQUY BEFORE...