People v. Dormann

265 A.D. 1017, 39 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 25, 1943·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

We are constrained, however, to sustain the contention of the appellant that the trial court, in the period between the submission of the case to the jury and the return of their verdict, made observations to the jury of a prejudicial and coercive character, which, in effect, invaded the function of the jury in respect of the evidence the jury was obligated to believe or to credit. It may be that the court intended to give expression to thoughts that were not erroneous or prejudicial, but under circumstances of tension made an unhappy choice of language. We must consider, however, the possible effect of the erroneous statements as made, and may not ascribe to the court’s language a meaning which, if so understood, would not have been erroneous. Order denying motion to set aside the appointment of Irving G. Kennedy as Special District Attorney, and to dismiss the indictment, affirmed. Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur. [See 180 Misc. 160.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Dormann, 265 A.D. 1017, 39 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

265 A.D. 1017 (People v. Dormann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Dormann
180 Misc. 160 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)