You are here: / / THE DEFENSE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO SAID SHE WOULD EXPECT THAT...

THE DEFENSE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO SAID SHE WOULD EXPECT THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD PRESENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defense for cause challenge to a juror should have been granted:

“[A] prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial” … . Here, the prospective juror’s statements to the effect that she would expect the defense to present evidence raised a serious doubt about her ability to be impartial and her subsequent responses fell short of providing “unequivocal assurances of impartiality” … . People v Feddaoui, 2021 NY Slip Op 06859, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

You might also like
LOCAL LAWS CONCERNING PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE VILLAGE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WERE NOT PREEMPTED BY THE STATE-WIDE VILLAGE LAW.
Evidence of Post-Accident Elevator-Repairs Not Discoverable
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NON-PARTY SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
Criteria for Allowing Late Claim Described
EVIDENCE OF ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, PRESENCE IS NOT ENOUGH 2ND DEPT.
RETURN OF THE CHILDREN TO MOTHER AFTER A TEMPORARY REMOVAL WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED A PREDICATE SEX OFFENDER BASED UPON A MICHIGAN CONVICTION OF “BREAKING AND ENTERING AN OCCUPIED DWELLING WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE SECOND DEGREE” (SECOND DEPT).
Second Foreclosure Action Not Prohibited Where First Is Not Pending and Did Not Result in a Judgment

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

DEFENDANT, DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, DID NOT ADMIT HE POSSESSED A STOLEN “MOTOR... GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE CHILD VICTIMS ACT COMPLAINTS WHERE DEFENDANT MOVES TO...