probing and tactful inquiry in New York

2025"If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . . , the court must discharge such juror" ( id. § 270.35[1]). "[E]ach case must be evaluated on its unique facts to determine whether a particular juror must be disqualified under CPL 270.35" ( People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 299 ). "[T]he trial court must question each allegedly unqualified juror individually in camera in the presence of the attorneys and defen

2025In reviewing the actions of the trial judge, the Court concluded that " '[i]n a probing and tactful inquiry, the [trial] court [did] evaluate the nature of what [juror No. 5] ha[d] seen, heard, or ha[d] acquired knowledge of, and assess[ed] its importance and its bearing on the case' " ( id . at 1309, quoting People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 299 [alterations in original]).

2025"If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . . , the court must discharge such juror" ( id. § 270.35[1]). "[E]ach case must be evaluated on its unique facts to determine whether a particular juror must be disqualified under CPL 270.35" ( People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 299 ). "[T]he trial court must question each allegedly unqualified juror individually in camera in the presence of the attorneys and defen

2019In making such a determination, "the trial court must question [the] allegedly unqualified juror individually in camera in the presence of the attorneys and defendant," conducting "a probing and tactful inquiry" into the "unique facts" of each case, including a careful consideration of "the juror's answers and demeanor to ascertain whether her state of mind will affect her deliberations" ( People v Buford , 69 NY2d at 299 ; see People v Spencer , 29 NY3d at 310 ; People v Dukes , 8 NY3d 952, 953 ; People v Rodriguez , 71 NY2d 214, 219 ).

2015In any event, when the court was made aware during the trial that one of the jurors might have failed to disclose that she had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor and that she might have been familiar with the murder victim’s family, the court conducted “ ‘a probing and tactful inquiry’ into the facts of the situation” (People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 213 [2002], quoting Buford, 69 NY2d at 299 ).

2015In any event, when the court was made aware during the trial that one of the jurors might have failed to disclose that she had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor and that she might have been familiar with the murder victim’s family, the court conducted “ ‘a probing and tactful inquiry’ into the facts of the situation” (People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 213 [2002], quoting Buford, 69 NY2d at 299 ).

2016In a probing and tactful inquiry, the court should evaluate the nature of what the juror has seen, heard, or has acquired knowledge of, and assess its importance and its bearing on the case’ ” (People v Ruggiero, 279 AD2d 538, 538 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 834 [2001], quoting Buford, 69 NY2d at 299 ).

2016In a probing and tactful inquiry, the court should evaluate the nature of what the juror has seen, heard, or has acquired knowledge of, and assess its importance and its bearing on the case’ ” (People v Ruggiero, 279 AD2d 538, 538 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 834 [2001], quoting Buford, 69 NY2d at 299 ).

2025We have also cautioned that it would be "unnecessary and indeed inappropriate to subject [a] juror to questions relating to her thought processes, the deliberations or other matters that lie within the confines of the jury room" ( People v Sanchez , 99 NY2d 622, 623-624 [2003]).

2017To that end, the trial court "[i]n a probing and tactful inquiry . . . should evaluate the nature of what the juror has seen, heard, or has acquired knowledge of, and assess its importance and its bearing on the case . . . . [and] should carefully consider the juror's answers and demeanor to ascertain whether her state of mind will affect her deliberations" (Buford, 69 NY2d at 299). - 9 - - 10 - No. 76 We have cautioned that it would be "unnecessary and indeed inappropriate to subject [a] juror to questions relating to her thought processes, the deliberations or other matters that lie within t

2025An allegation that even one juror harbors racial animus or espouses preconceptions about a racial group is a serious matter that requires immediate attention from the trial court ( see Rukaj , 123 AD2d at 280-281 ; see also People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 298-299 [1987] [explaining that a juror must be discharged as grossly unqualified pursuant to CPL 270.35 when it is discovered during trial that they will not be able to render an impartial verdict, such as where the juror possesses actual bias, and holding that a trial court must conduct a probing and tactful inquiry of an allegedly unqualifi

2025An allegation that even one juror harbors racial animus or espouses preconceptions about a racial group is a serious matter that requires immediate attention from the trial court ( see Rukaj , 123 AD2d at 280-281; see also People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 298-299 [1987] [explaining that a juror must be discharged as grossly unqualified pursuant to CPL 270.35 when it is discovered during trial that they will not be able to render an impartial verdict, such as where the juror possesses actual bias, and holding that a trial court must conduct a probing and tactful inquiry of an allegedly unqualifie

2023"The[*5][t]rial [j]udge generally is accorded latitude in making the findings necessary to determine whether a juror is grossly unqualified under CPL 270.35, because that [j]udge is in the best position to assess partiality in an allegedly biased juror" ( People v Rodriguez , 71 NY2d 214, 219 [1988] [citation omitted]; see People v Leader , 285 AD2d 823, 824 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 756 [2002]).

2023"The[*5][t]rial [j]udge generally is accorded latitude in making the findings necessary to determine whether a juror is grossly unqualified under CPL 270.35, because that [j]udge is in the best position to assess partiality in an allegedly biased juror" ( People v Rodriguez , 71 NY2d 214, 219 [1988] [citation omitted]; see People v Leader , 285 AD2d 823, 824 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 756 [2002]).

2017We reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the alleged juror misconduct inasmuch as the court conducted a probing and tactful inquiry sufficient under Buford ( 69 NY2d at 299 ). -2- 118 KA 14-00875 Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 ), we reject defendant’s further contention in appeal No. 1 that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

2017Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant’s further contention in appeal No. 1 that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2017We reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the alleged juror misconduct inasmuch as the court conducted a probing and tactful inquiry sufficient under Buford ( 69 NY2d at 299 ). -2- 118 KA 14-00875 Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 ), we reject defendant’s further contention in appeal No. 1 that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ).

2017Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant’s further contention in appeal No. 1 that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2025County Court further [*3]conducted a proper inquiry of juror No. 8 and, based upon this juror's assurances that he had not fallen asleep during any portion of the proceedings and had heard all of the testimony, did not err in declining to discharge him ( see People v Robinson , 121 AD3d 1179, 1181 [3d Dept 2014]; People v Buel , 53 AD3d 930, 931 [3d Dept 2008]).

2020Given that the record discloses that the court conducted a probing and tactful inquiry ( see People v Robinson , 121 AD3d 1179, 1181 [2014]) and deferring to its credibility determination that the foreperson could remain [*3]impartial and did not hear juror No. 116's remark ( see People v Green , 127 AD3d at 1475 ), the court did not err in denying defendant's request for a mistrial. [FN1] Defendant argues that the imposed sentence was harsh and excessive. [FN2] He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the greatest of which was 25 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease

2022County Court had to ensure that juror No. 6 could be impartial and, to get that assurance, the court had to delve beyond why juror No. 6 did not mark on the juror questionnaire that she was a crime victim and probe her about being a rape victim and its impact upon her ( see People v Thomas , 196 AD2d 462, 464-465 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 904 [1993]).

2022County Court had to ensure that juror No. 6 could be impartial and, to get that assurance, the court had to delve beyond why juror No. 6 did not mark on the juror questionnaire that she was a crime victim and probe her about being a rape victim and its impact upon her ( see People v Thomas , 196 AD2d 462, 464-465 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 904 [1993]).

2022That discretion, however, is "not unbounded" ( People v Daniels , 218 AD2d 589, 590 [1995]).

2022That discretion, however, is "not unbounded" ( People v Daniels , 218 AD2d 589, 590 [1995]).

2022Whether to discharge a juror as being grossly unqualified turns on this probing and tactful inquiry and, if such inquiry has occurred, it is within the discretion of the court to discharge a juror ( see People v Bailey , 258 AD2d 807, 807-808 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1001 [1999]).

2022Whether to discharge a juror as being grossly unqualified turns on this probing and tactful inquiry and, if such inquiry has occurred, it is within the discretion of the court to discharge a juror ( see People v Bailey , 258 AD2d 807, 807-808 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1001 [1999]).

2022By not making a timely objection defendant failed to preserve any challenge to the court's procedure in conducting the juror inquiry ( see People v Parilla , 27 NY3d 400, 405 [2016] ["argument that the trial court failed to engage in a probing and tactful inquiry of the juror is unpreserved."]) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

2022By not making a timely objection defendant failed to preserve any challenge to the court's procedure in conducting the juror inquiry ( see People v Parilla , 27 NY3d 400, 405 [2016] ["argument that the trial court failed to engage in a probing and tactful inquiry of the juror is unpreserved."]) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

1989(People v Cargill, 70 NY2d 687, 688-689 ; see, People v Anderson, supra; People v Buford, supra, at 298.) Here, the discharge was unsupported by any objective indicia of juror partiality.

1988(People v Cargill, 70 NY2d 687, 688-689 ; see, People v Anderson, supra; People v Buford, supra, at 298.) Here, the discharge was unsupported by any objective indicia of juror partiality.

2025County Court further [*3]conducted a proper inquiry of juror No. 8 and, based upon this juror's assurances that he had not fallen asleep during any portion of the proceedings and had heard all of the testimony, did not err in declining to discharge him ( see People v Robinson , 121 AD3d 1179, 1181 [3d Dept 2014]; People v Buel , 53 AD3d 930, 931 [3d Dept 2008]).

2025Here, County Court engaged in a probing and tactful inquiry into juror No. 7's ability to continue serving on the jury and, based upon her responses, appropriately determined that she was not grossly unqualified ( compare People v Lapage , 57 AD3d 1233, 1236 [3d Dept 2008]).

2025An allegation that even one juror harbors racial animus or espouses preconceptions about a racial group is a serious matter that requires immediate attention from the trial court ( see Rukaj , 123 AD2d at 280-281 ; see also People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 298-299 [1987] [explaining that a juror must be discharged as grossly unqualified pursuant to CPL 270.35 when it is discovered during trial that they will not be able to render an impartial verdict, such as where the juror possesses actual bias, and holding that a trial court must conduct a probing and tactful inquiry of an allegedly unqualifi

2025An allegation that even one juror harbors racial animus or espouses preconceptions about a racial group is a serious matter that requires immediate attention from the trial court ( see Rukaj , 123 AD2d at 280-281; see also People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 298-299 [1987] [explaining that a juror must be discharged as grossly unqualified pursuant to CPL 270.35 when it is discovered during trial that they will not be able to render an impartial verdict, such as where the juror possesses actual bias, and holding that a trial court must conduct a probing and tactful inquiry of an allegedly unqualifie

2025"If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, . . . the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case . . . , the court must discharge such juror" ( id. § 270.35[1]). "[E]ach case must be evaluated on its unique facts to determine whether a particular juror must be disqualified under CPL 270.35" ( People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 299 ). "[T]he trial court must question each allegedly unqualified juror individually in camera in the presence of the attorneys and defen

2025An allegation that even one juror harbors racial animus or espouses preconceptions about a racial group is a serious matter that requires immediate attention from the trial court ( see Rukaj , 123 AD2d at 280-281 ; see also People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 298-299 [1987] [explaining that a juror must be discharged as grossly unqualified pursuant to CPL 270.35 when it is discovered during trial that they will not be able to render an impartial verdict, such as where the juror possesses actual bias, and holding that a trial court must conduct a probing and tactful inquiry of an allegedly unqualifi

2025An allegation that even one juror harbors racial animus or espouses preconceptions about a racial group is a serious matter that requires immediate attention from the trial court ( see Rukaj , 123 AD2d at 280-281; see also People v Buford , 69 NY2d 290, 298-299 [1987] [explaining that a juror must be discharged as grossly unqualified pursuant to CPL 270.35 when it is discovered during trial that they will not be able to render an impartial verdict, such as where the juror possesses actual bias, and holding that a trial court must conduct a probing and tactful inquiry of an allegedly unqualifie

2020"To decide whether a juror is grossly unqualified, the trial court must conduct a probing and tactful inquiry and exercise its discretion to determine whether the context of the entire colloquy reveals an obviously partial state of mind and convincingly demonstrates that the sworn juror cannot render an impartial verdict" ( People v Crider , 176 AD3d 1499 , 1500 [2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 34 NY3d 1157 [2020]; see People v Green , 127 AD3d 1473, 1474-1475 [2015], lvs denied 27 NY3d 965 , 969 [2016]).

2020Given that the record discloses that the court conducted a probing and tactful inquiry ( see People v Robinson , 121 AD3d 1179, 1181 [2014]) and deferring to its credibility determination that the foreperson could remain [*3]impartial and did not hear juror No. 116's remark ( see People v Green , 127 AD3d at 1475 ), the court did not err in denying defendant's request for a mistrial. [FN1] Defendant argues that the imposed sentence was harsh and excessive. [FN2] He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the greatest of which was 25 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease

2019In making such a determination, "the trial court must question [the] allegedly unqualified juror individually in camera in the presence of the attorneys and defendant," conducting "a probing and tactful inquiry" into the "unique facts" of each case, including a careful consideration of "the juror's answers and demeanor to ascertain whether her state of mind will affect her deliberations" ( People v Buford , 69 NY2d at 299 ; see People v Spencer , 29 NY3d at 310 ; People v Dukes , 8 NY3d 952, 953 ; People v Rodriguez , 71 NY2d 214, 219 ).

2019A "Trial Judge generally is accorded latitude in making the findings necessary to determine whether a juror is grossly unqualified under CPL 270.35, because that Judge is in the best position to assess partiality in an allegedly biased juror" ( People v Rodriguez , 71 NY2d at 219 ; see People v Kuzdzal , 31 NY3d at 483 ; People v Spencer , 29 NY3d at 310 ).