You are here: / / THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED JUROR 15 WAS ONE OF TWO JURORS WHO GAVE A NON-VERBAL...

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED JUROR 15 WAS ONE OF TWO JURORS WHO GAVE A NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT HOLD IT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IF HE DID NOT TESTIFY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE RECORD DOES NOT IDENTIFY JUROR 15 AS ONE OF THE TWO JURORS AND DID NOT DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that a juror gave a non-verbal assurance that he would not hold it against the defendant if he did not testify. The dissent argued the record did not clearly indicate which jurors gave the non-verbal assurance:

We disagree with the dissent that “[t]here is no indication in the record that prospective juror number 15 was one of the two prospective jurors who were acknowledged by the court as having given some form of nonverbal assurance that they could follow its instructions.” Only three prospective jurors were questioned by defense counsel regarding their desire to hear from defendant. In response to the court’s follow-up questions, one prospective juror unequivocally indicated that he could not follow the court’s instructions regarding defendant’s failure to testify, and the court went on to ask, “[o]kay, anyone else? Can you follow that instruction whether you believe in it or not? I mean, obviously we talked about this. You both can? Okay. All right, thanks” … . Having already spoken to one of the three prospective jurors, it is clear that the court was addressing the remaining two prospective jurors who had expressed a desire to hear from defendant—including prospective juror number 15. Furthermore, in denying defense counsel’s for-cause challenge, the court stated on the record that both prospective juror number 15 and prospective juror number 16 “said they could follow [its] instructions. I asked them exactly on that . . . but they said no, they could follow it.”

From the dissent:

There is no indication in the record that prospective juror number 15 was one of the two prospective jurors who were acknowledged by the court as having given some form of a nonverbal assurance that they could follow its instruction, and the nature of the nonverbal assurance provided by those prospective jurors is not identified in the record. People v Smith, 2021 NY Slip Op 07406, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

You might also like
RAISED METAL PLATE IN SIDEWALK DEEMED A NONACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE A THIRD PARTY CONFESSED TO THE MURDER MUST BE ASSESSED AND WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE THIRD PARTY CONFESSION MUST BE DETERMINED.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT).
A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A JURY VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (1) MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS IN THE RECORD; I.E., ISSUES THAT CAN BE RAISED ON APPEAL; HERE THE MOTION WAS BASED ON MATTERS OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT).
Motion to Amend Answer Should Have Been Allowed—Prejudice in this Context Explained
MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) Applied to the Driver of a Town Truck—The Driver Was Using a Plow to Remove Water and Debris from a Road—Because the Driver Was Acting On His Own and Had Not Been Assigned to Remove the Water and Debris, the Question Raised on Appeal Was Whether the Driver Was Doing “Work” within the Meaning of Section 1103 (b) such that the Statutory Standard, as Opposed to the Ordinary Negligence Standard, Applied

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ACCOUNTING, HE NEVER REPUDIATED HIS... THE “PRECAUTIONARY ADDENDUM,” ALTHOUGH REPEALED, STILL MAY BE APPLIED...