ONE WAS DISTRACTED, WHILE OTHER COULDN’T CONFIRM IMPARTIALITY
After he was found guilty of assault in the third degree, DF appealed to the Appellate Division, Third Department, alleging the Albany County Supreme Court court had committed a number of errors – the thrust of which was that two jurors had been wrongfully discharged.
Apparently, during the second day of jury selection, juror #2 sent a note to the judge indicating that she had “unchangeable travel plans" that were coming up that Friday morning. Because she believed the trial would be over by Wednesday of that week, she didn’t previously voice a concern. But when the selection process extended into a second day, she was concerned that she would be “distracted,” and unable to focus. And, in response, the trial court opted to discharge that juror because her “state of mind” made her “unable to ‘render[] an impartial verdict.’”
Similarly, juror #21 advised the court that she had a child who suffered from bipolar disorder and who experienced psychotic episodes. After expressing empathy for those with mental-health challenges, because she was unable to unequivocally express her ability to be impartial in the case, she was also discharged.
On its review, because the AD3 didn’t think the trial court had abused its discretion when it released those two jurors, the conviction was affirmed.
Were they driven to distraction here?
# # #
DECISION