THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE SLOAN, APPELLANT. / THE PEOPLE &C.,
RESPONDENT, v. TERRANCE MCMAHON, APPELLANT.
79 N.Y.2d 386, 592 N.E.2d 784, 583 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1992).
April 7, 1992
1 No. 41
1 No. 42
Decided April 7, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
No. 41:
Lawrence A. Vogelman, for Appellant.
Alan Gadlin, for Respondent.
No. 42:
Steven B. Rosenfeld, for Appellant.
Alan Gadlin, for Respondent.
HANCOCK, J.:
In People v Velasco (77 NY2d 469), we held that defendants do not
have the right to be personally present during informal questioning of
prospective jurors that relates only to grounds for juror
disqualification by the court, such as physical impairment, family
obligations and work commitments. The issue presented here is whether
a defendant has a right to hear and be present during conference
questioning concerning issues touching upon the merits of the case,
such as the jurors' knowledge of and reaction to pretrial publicity
concerning the specific crime on trial and their attitude toward the
prosecution's key witness, a widely known television newscaster. For
the reasons that follow, we hold that questioning the prospective
jurors on such matters without the presence of defendants was error.
There should, therefore, be a reversal and a new trial.
I.
On May 11, 1983, defendants McMahon and Sloan, with the aid of two
others, allegedly robbed the Racing Club restaurant on the Upper East
Side of Manhattan. John Roland, a local television newscaster ,
attempted to disarm Sloan during the robbery. A struggle ensued during
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE SLOAN, APPELLANT.
In People v Velasco (77 NY2d 469), we held that defendants do not have the right to be
The issue presented here is whether a defendant has a right to hear and be present during
we hold that questioning the prospective jurors on such matters without the presence of
On May 11, 1983, defendants McMahon and Sloan, with the aid of two others, allegedly robbed
Sloan and Roland grappled until McMahon subdued Roland by hitting him several times on the
While the robbery was underway, a waiter escaped from the restaurant and fled to a nearby
Defendants were apprehended one half block from the scene after the waiter returned with the
At the subsequent trial, prior to commencement of the formal voir dire by counsel, the judge
Jurors were asked such questions as whether they could weigh a news reporter's testimony
We now reverse.
In People v Velasco (77 NY2d 469, supra), we summarized the law, stating:
His presence is required only where his absence would have a substantial effect on his
(Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 US, at pp 105-106, supra * * *.)"
Unlike Velasco, however, defendants' presence here could have had a substantial effect on
|
