People v. Legister

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Legister

552 N.E.2d 154, 75 N.Y.2d 832, 552 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 127

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 8, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 552 N.E.2d 154 (People v. Legister) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Legister, 552 N.E.2d 154, 75 N.Y.2d 832, 552 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 127 (N.Y. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

At the trial of this case, a primary issue was the extent to which the victim was able to see the face of her attacker in the darkened bedroom where the crime occurred. After two days of deliberations, the jurors had not yet reached a verdict. [833]*833During the overnight sequestration one juror adjusted the lighting conditions and opened the curtains in her hotel room to simulate what she believed to be the conditions of the crime scene, based on the victim’s testimony. She then asked another juror to walk in and out of the room, wearing clothing similar in color to that worn by the attacker, so that she could determine whether the victim would have been able to make a reliable identification. When deliberations resumed the next morning, the juror discussed the test with some of her associates. The jury soon returned a guilty verdict.

As in People v Brown (48 NY2d 388, 394), the juror’s conduct was conscious, contrived experimentation, directly material to a critical point at issue in the trial. In addition, the risk of prejudice to defendant is apparent. The victim’s identification of the defendant was crucial to the prosecution’s case and the juror’s experiment bolstered the identification with nonrecord evidence not subject to challenge by the defendant.

Moreover, there are in this case sufficient guarantees that the juror’s report of her conduct was genuine and not the product of posttrial harassment or intimidation. She discussed the experiment with some of her fellow jurors just before the final vote and she recounted the story almost immediately after the verdict in a conversation that included both defense counsel and the prosecutor.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum; Judge Alexander taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

At the trial of this case, a primary issue was the extent to which the victim was able to see the face of her attacker in the darkened bedroom where the crime occurred. After two days of deliberations, the jurors had not yet reached a verdict. [833]*833During the overnight sequestration one juror adjusted the lighting conditions and opened the curtains in her hotel room to simulate what she believed to be the conditions of the crime scene, based on the victim’s testimony. She then asked another juror to walk in and out of the room, wearing clothing similar in color to that worn by the attacker, so that she could determine whether the victim would have been able to make a reliable identification. When deliberations resumed the next morning, the juror discussed the test with some of her associates. The jury soon returned a guilty verdict.

As in People v Brown (48 NY2d 388, 394), the juror’s conduct was conscious, contrived experimentation, directly material to a critical point at issue in the trial. In addition, the risk of prejudice to defendant is apparent. The victim’s identification of the defendant was crucial to the prosecution’s case and the juror’s experiment bolstered the identification with nonrecord evidence not subject to challenge by the defendant.

Moreover, there are in this case sufficient guarantees that the juror’s report of her conduct was genuine and not the product of posttrial harassment or intimidation. She discussed the experiment with some of her fellow jurors just before the final vote and she recounted the story almost immediately after the verdict in a conversation that included both defense counsel and the prosecutor.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum; Judge Alexander taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 N.E.2d 154, 75 N.Y.2d 832, 552 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-legister-ny-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack