People v. Jordan

88 A.D.3d 580, 931 N.Y.2d 223
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 20, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The totality of the voir dire record demonstrates that defendant made a valid waiver of his right to be present at sidebar discussions with prospective jurors (see People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247 [1992]).

In any event, defendant could not have been prejudiced by his absence from the four sidebar conferences at issue, because in each instance he could not have made a meaningful contribution (see People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18, 26-27 [1996]). Three of the panelists were effectively disqualified by the court for cause as a result of their expressed concern that they could not be impartial (see People v Garcia, 265 AD2d 171 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 862 [1999]).

The remaining panelist became a sworn juror, but was replaced by an alternate prior to deliberations. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

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

People v. Jordan, 88 A.D.3d 580, 931 N.Y.2d 223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

88 A.D.3d 580 (People v. Jordan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

CARSON, MATTHEW M., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015