4 No. 80
The People &c.,
Appellant,
v.
Marlon Arnold,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 70
June 12, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Stephen K. Lindley, for appellant.
Stephen J. Bird, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
A basic premise of our criminal justice system is that a defendant has
the right to trial by an impartial jury. This appeal requires us to
consider, once again, what it means for a juror to be impartial, and
what is required to insure the impartiality of the jury.
Defendant was convicted of assault for stabbing his former girlfriend.
His defense at trial was that he had acted in self-defense after she
had attacked him with a razor blade. During voir dire, defense counsel
asked a panel of prospective jurors if anyone was "thinking in the
back of your mind maybe this is not the case that I ought to be
sitting on because of my own personal background, my own personal
experience, my own personal feelings about certain situations."
Prospective Juror Number 4, who had a bachelor's degree in sociology
and had minored in women's studies, answered, "Yes," stating that she
had done "a lot of research" on domestic violence and battered women's
syndrome. She added, "I have a problem with that." Defense counsel
then asked whether if, in the jury room, "would you be saying, well, I
minored in this in college, and I've done all of this research and in
effect become another witness in the case, an expert if you will, on
that area with the other jurors. Do you think that might be a
problem?" The prospective juror answered, "I think so." Counsel then
asked whether she would feel more comfortable sitting on another kind
of case, such as a bank robbery. She responded, "I think I would."
Later in the voir dire, defense counsel asked the entire panel whether
SNIPPETS:
The People &c., Appellant, v. Marlon Arnold, Respondent.
A basic premise of our criminal justice system is that a defendant has the right to trial by
This appeal requires us to consider, once again, what it means for a juror to be impartial,
During voir dire, defense counsel asked a panel of prospective jurors if anyone was "thinking
Prospective Juror Number 4, who had a bachelor's degree in sociology and had minored in
Later in the voir dire, defense counsel asked the entire panel whether they could follow the
Counsel noted she did not give an unequivocal assurance that she could be fair, and added the
The trial court denied the challenge for cause, after which defense counsel used a peremptory
The majority reasoned that once "the prospective juror expressed doubt regarding her ability
A Judge of this Court granted leave,
Upon such a challenge, a juror who has revealed doubt, because of prior knowledge or opinion,
While the CPL, unlike the former Code of Criminal Procedure, does not require any particular
When "potential jurors themselves openly state that they doubt their own ability to be
Commentators also have grappled with this issue (see, Richard M. Fraher, Adjudicative Facts,
we determined that the experiments conducted by the jurors denied the defendants a fair trial
Most recently, in People v Maragh, we reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial where two
Here, relying on Maragh, defendant argues that the trial court was required to conduct
The more difficult question is whether at that point the Trial Judge's refusal to allow a
The juror obviously did not conduct any "personal specialized assessments" of the evidence
The fact that the juror had studied domestic violence in college did not demonstrate that she
Here, while defendant was charged with assaulting his former girlfriend, he points to no
Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
|
