You are here: / / FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSE...

FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Second Department determined the trial judge's denial of the defense's for cause juror challenge was reversible error:

CPL 270.20(1)(b) provides that a prospective juror may be challenged for cause if the juror “has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial.” Where an issue is raised concerning the ability of a prospective juror to be fair and impartial, the prospective juror must state unequivocally that his or her prior state of mind will not influence his or her verdict, and that he or she will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence … . A prospective juror's responses, construed as a whole, must demonstrate an absolute belief that his or her prior opinion will not influence his or her verdict … .

Here, during voir dire, one prospective juror indicated in response to questioning by defense counsel that, because she had a 14-year-old daughter and a 17-year-old daughter, this “could” weigh on her ability to be fair and impartial because “[t]hey are the same age range” as the complainant. When defense counsel followed up by asking, “[w]ould you fear whether or not you could be fair and impartial?,” the prospective juror responded by stating, “I think it would be hard for me to watch a witness, being that I have daughters the same age.”

Once the prospective juror expressed doubt regarding her ability to be impartial, it was incumbent upon the court to ascertain that she would render an impartial verdict based on the evidence … . This was not done. People v Valdez, 2016 NY Slip Op 03203, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


You might also like
CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER.
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ITS ACTION FOR SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AFTER A DWI CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE COUNTY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY CODE (SECOND DEPT).
Unlicensed Contractor Could Not Sue for Breach of Contract or Quantum Meruit
Formal Training Not Necessarily Required to Qualify an Expert
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Method of Service of Citation Should Be Calculated to Provide Notice Based Upon Facts Known To Court
THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL EXPLAINED.

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

PEDESTRIAN IN A CROSSWALK STRUCK FROM BEHIND IS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT... DEFENDANT RAISED SUBSTANTIVE FACTUAL DISPUTES ABOUT THE EFFICACY AND LEGALITY...