You are here: / / THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTIMIDATING...
,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTIMIDATING WITNESSES SUCH THAT OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS BY THOSE WITNESSES WERE ADMISSIBLE; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EXERCISE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO JURORS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined (1) the People did not demonstrate the defendant was responsible for the intimidation of witnesses by others; and (2), the People should not have been allowed to exercise peremptory challenges to jurors after those jurors had been accepted by the defense:

“The purpose of a Sirois hearing is to determine whether the defendant has procured a witness’s absence or unavailability through his own misconduct, and thereby forfeited any hearsay or Confrontation Clause objections to admitting the witness’s out-of-court statements” … . The People must “present legally sufficient evidence of circumstances and events from which a court may properly infer that the defendant, or those at defendant’s direction or acting with defendant’s knowing acquiescence, threatened the witness” … . “At a Sirois hearing, the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant has procured the witness’s absence or unavailability” … .

… [T]he People’s evidence did not establish that the defendant controlled the individuals who threatened the witness or that the defendant influenced or persuaded any individual to threaten the witness or his family … . …

The Supreme Court committed reversible error when it permitted the People to exercise peremptory challenges to prospective jurors after the defendant and his codefendant exercised peremptory challenges to that same panel of prospective jurors … . This procedure violated “the one persistently protected and enunciated rule of jury selection—that the People make peremptory challenges first, and that they never be permitted to go back and challenge a juror accepted by the defense” … . People v Burgess, 2021 NY Slip Op 05580, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

You might also like
Interest Pursuant to CPLR 5002 and 5003 Is a Matter of Right Not Dependent Upon the Court’s Discretion or a Demand
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY FANNIE MAE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, FANNIE MAE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACTION BY POLICE OFFICER STEMMING FROM A FALL AT THE OFFICE; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e ACTION PROPERLY BASED ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 27-a.
Failure to Inquire About Defendant’s Understanding of Intoxication Defense Required Vacation of Guilty Plea
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ACTION TO RECOVER PROCEEDS OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSURED WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PREMIUM DUE DATE (SECOND DEPT).
Concurrent, Not Consecutive, Sentences Should Have Been Imposed Where “Actus Reus” Was a Single, Inseparable Act
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS UNTIMELY; THE PORTION OF THE UNTIMELY MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN TIMELY RAISED BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT ELECTRICAL POWER BE SHUT DOWN TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL WORKERS (SECOND DEPT).

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 POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE REASON TO APPROACH DEFENDANT... PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STRUCK BY A BRICK WHICH RICOCHETED OUT OF A CHUTE USED...