Prospective Juror’s Knowledge of Defendant’s Reputation Potentially More Important Than Knowledge of the Crime Charged
Do you think it might be wrong to have on the jury someone who has heard of the defendant and ‘knows’ he’s a bad guy? Turns out, you’re probably right. The rule on whether a person can be fair and impartial is different if the prejudice we are worried about is about the defendant rather than the crime. There are different forms of pre-judgement which are attractive to potential jurors. If someone thinks a...
read moreInsufficient Factual Allegations Render Complaint Jurisdictionally Defective
We don’t see misuse of NYCTA MetroCard charges very often, but the Court of Appeals decided such a case today in People v Hightower (#223 decided December 23, 2011). What makes the case applicable to us is that the defendant pled guilty to Petit Larceny, and a unanimous Court of Appeals dismissed the charges because the accusatory was jurisdictionally defective. Hightower was charged with three charges, PL and two relating to the specific activity...
read moreFourth Department – In SORA Hearing, Addition of Points Sua Sponte Violates Due Process
While the remedy was merely remand for a new hearing, this decision could prove important if it stops a court from assessing points at the SORA hearing. It’s also an important reminder that SORA is a contested process where the People bear the burden. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAppellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department1236 KA 11-00285 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW...
read moreYou Can’t Go Your Own Way – The Deliberating Jury
The CPL requirement that a deliberating jury be “continuously kept together” (CPL 310.10[1]) has had its ups and downs over the last twenty years. People v Coons (75 NY2d 796 [1990]) determined that the failure of the trial court to keep a deliberating jury together was a mode of proceeding error, a category of error which cannot be waived and requires no objection to present an error of law to the Court of Appeals....
read moreEavesdropping Warrant Requirement
On February 15th, the Court of Appeals decided People v Rabb and People v Mason (_NY3d_, 2011 NY Slip Op 01050 [2/15/11]). It reviewed a determination of the Appellate Division that requirements for an eavesdropping warrant had been met in a racketeering investigation into a labor coalition which had been alleged to engage various coercive tactics. The requirements, set forth in CPL 700.15 (4), are that an eavesdropping warrant application must demonstrate that normal...
read more
