THE PEOPLE &C. v QUINTIN CHAMBERS - Legal Case Documents


\|

THE PEOPLE &C. v QUINTIN CHAMBERS

Keywords & Phrases

CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE &C., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I02_0028, Prospective Juror, Appellate Division, Police Testimony, Excuse, Defense Counsel, Trial Court, Impartiality, Equivocation, Ny2d, Respondent, Ability, Judge, Opinion, Curiam, Jury, Conviction, Appeals, Voir Dire, Observers, Peremptory, Divided Appellate Division, Statements Raise, Appellate Division Majority, Defendant Argues, Alone, Talismanic Word, Render, Context, Deny , ContentID: 120251765

Case Documents

OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 125674

2 pages
HTML

Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages

Price: $ 19.95

IVESLCD01 KGI0001

1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

APPELLATE DIVISION
POLICE TESTIMONY
EXCUSE
DEFENSE COUNSEL
TRIAL COURT
IMPARTIALITY
EQUIVOCATION
NY2D
RESPONDENT
ABILITY
JUDGE
OPINION
CURIAM
JURY
DEFENDANT
CONVICTION
APPEALS
VOIR DIRE
OBSERVERS
PEREMPTORY
DIVIDED APPELLATE DIVISION
STATEMENTS RAISE
APPELLATE DIVISION MAJORITY
DEFENDANT ARGUES
ALONE
TALISMANIC WORD
RENDER
CONTEXT
DENY



   4 No. 23
   The People &c.,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Quintin Chambers,
   Appellant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2002 NY Int. 28

   March 19, 2002

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   James Eckert, for appellant.
   Wendy Evans Lehmann, for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   PER CURIAM:

   After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of murder in the second
   degree. The sole issue on appeal is whether a prospective juror should
   have been excused for cause after acknowledging during voir dire that
   in his view, "trained police officers are good observers" and that he
   "would tend to believe police testimony to some degree." The following
   colloquy occurred:

     "(DEFENSE COUNSEL): I just want to be sure a juror isn't going to
     give (police) testimony any more weight than anyone else. Are you
     telling me you would do that?

     "(PROSPECTIVE JUROR): I would try not to let it affect that. I
     don't think it would be a problem.

     "(DEFENSE COUNSEL): Well, I think if it's on your mind, it may be a
     problem. Do you think that it could affect you, your ability to be
     fair and listen fairly to police testimony?

     "(PROSPECTIVE JUROR): No, I don't think so."

   Defense counsel moved to excuse the prospective juror for cause,
   arguing that he would be biased toward police testimony. After the
   trial court denied the challenge, the defense excused the prospective
   juror by peremptory challenge, and subsequently exhausted its
   peremptory challenges. A divided Appellate Division affirmed the

SNIPPETS:

The People &c., Respondent, v. Quintin Chambers, Appellant.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree.

The sole issue on appeal is whether a prospective juror should have been excused for cause

"(DEFENSE COUNSEL): I just want to be sure a juror isn't going to give testimony any more

Defense counsel moved to excuse the prospective juror for cause, arguing that he would be

After the trial court denied the challenge, the defense excused the prospective juror by

A divided Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

As we have repeatedly made clear, a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt

Here, as the Appellate Division majority correctly concluded, even if the prospective juror's

Defendant argues that while "no" alone would have been unequivocal, the prospective juror's