 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
VERDICT TRIAL COURT RESPONDENT APPELLANT MEMORANDUM INSTRUCTIONS DEFENSE JUDGE LAW RENDERING ABILITY ARNOLD NY2D INNOCENCE TESTIFY GUILTY DEFENDANT PROPER PEREMPTORY CPL STATEMENTS CAST PROPER LEGAL STANDARDS ELICIT UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCE JURY COLLECTIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT INSUFFICIENT UNEQUIVOCAL DECLARATION SUPRA |
4 No. 149
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Donnell Bludson,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 120
November 15, 2001
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Shirley K. Duffy, for appellant.
James P. Maxwell, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial
ordered.
Criminal Procedure Law § 270.20(1)(b) provides that a party may
challenge a prospective juror 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 at the trial." Upon such a
challenge "a juror who has revealed doubt, because of prior knowledge
or opinion, about (his or) her ability to serve impartially must be
excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that (he
or) she can be fair" (People v Arnold, , 96 NY2d 358, 362).
In this case, the trial court erred in denying defendant's challenges
for cause as to two prospective jurors. Earlier, the court instructed
the panel of prospective jurors as to the presumption of defendant's
innocence, the People's burden of proof and defendant's right not to
testify. Nonetheless, in response to defense counsel's questioning,
one prospective juror indicated that she would require defense counsel
to prove defendant's innocence in order for her to return a verdict of
not guilty. Another prospective juror stated that defendant's failure
to testify might influence his decision and "make it a little hard for
(him) to * * * say that (defendant was) not guilty." Having heard
these answers, the trial court took no corrective action, either
before or after the defense interposed proper challenges for cause,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
