You are here: / / ONE PROSPECTIVE JUROR TESTIFIED THE DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO COMMUNICATE...
, ,

ONE PROSPECTIVE JUROR TESTIFIED THE DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO COMMUNICATE WITH HER; THE JUDGE GRANTED THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE ENTIRE JURY PANEL; BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT FIRST QUESTION THE REMAINING JURORS ON THE PANEL ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL BEFORE DISMISSING THEM, THE JUDGE EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A PARTICULAR JURY CHOSEN ACCORDING TO LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the judgment of conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have dismissed the entire jury panel without conducting an inquiry. One prospective juror on the panel alleged the defendant tried to communicate with her. The People moved to dismiss the panel which the judge granted without questioning the remaining jurors about their ability to be fair and impartial:

“A defendant has a constitutional right to a trial by a particular jury chosen according to law, in whose selection [the defendant] has had a voice” … . Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law article 270, the first 12 members of the jury panel who are not excluded as prescribed by the statute constitute the trial jury … . Where a jury panel is “properly drawn and sworn to answer questions truthfully, there must be legal cause or a peremptory challenge to exclude a [prospective] juror” ( … see CPLR 270.15 … ). “A defendant ‘is . . . entitled to insist that the jury shall be selected according to methods established with a view to secure a just and impartial administration of the jury system . . . The court cannot arbitrarily, and without cause, set aside a competent juror. Neither the court nor the parties can select the jury, except in the way pointed out by the statute'” … . * * *

By dismissing the entire jury panel without questioning the ability of the individual prospective jurors to be fair and impartial …, the court deprived defendant of a jury chosen “at random from a fair cross-section of the community” … . People v Gaston, 2026 NY Slip Op 05971, Second Dept 10-14-26

Practice Point: A judge cannot arbitrarily and without cause dismiss a competent juror. Here the judge dismissed an entire panel of prospective jurors because one prospective juror alleged the defendant tried to communicate with her. In that situation, the judge should have questioned the remaining prospective jurors about their ability to be fair and impartial to determine if there was cause for dismissal.​

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; THE AFFIDAVIT, THEREFORE, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
STUDENT WALKING HOME FROM SCHOOL STRUCK BY A CAR, SUIT AGAINST SCHOOL BOARD AND MUNICIPALITY PROPERLY DISMISSED, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH MUNICIPALITY, NO DUTY TO SUPERVISE AFTER DISMISSAL FROM SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).
HERE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION; PLAINTIFF PASSENGER HAD SUED DECEDENT DRIVER AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANY; THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE DECEDENT DRIVER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECEDENT DRIVER; THE DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANY DID NOT GIVE THE INTERESTED PARTIES THE REQUIRED NOTICE OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON THE DRIVER’S DEATH; AND PLAINTIFF PASSENGER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE DECEDENT DRIVER (SECOND DEPT).
SAFE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICABILITY OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW EXEMPTIONS TO HOLDERS OF PISTOL PERMITS.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS, RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL, HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF A NEW YORK LAWSUIT, THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT INDICATES DUE DILIGENCE IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AT A NEW YORK ADDRESS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER SERVED, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH CPLR 8301(A)(6) REFERS TO “REASONABLE EXPENSES OF PRINTING THE PAPERS” FOR AN APPEAL, THE STATUTE IS INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE THE EXPENSES FOR PREPARATION OF A DIGITAL RECORD AND BRIEFS; A PARTY TO WHOM COSTS ARE AWARDED ON APPEAL CAN RECOVER THE COSTS OF CREATING THE DIGITAL RECORD AND BRIEFS (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACTION ALLEGING DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONDOMINIUM ACCRUED WHEN THE WORK WAS COMPLETED, I.E., WHEN THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS ISSUED; THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Lawsuit Prohibited by Unambiguous Release
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

LABOR LAW 240(1) APPLIES TO INJURIES INCURRED WHILE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION... THE PROOF OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE STRANGULATION...