New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 310.20 (2026)
Jury deliberation; use of exhibits and other material
✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 310.20 Jury deliberation; use of exhibits and other material. Upon retiring to deliberate, the jurors may take with them: 1. Any exhibits received in evidence at the trial which the court, after according the parties an opportunity to be heard upon the matter, in its discretion permits them to take; 2. A written list prepared by the court containing the offenses submitted to the jury by the court in its charge and the possible verdicts thereon. Whenever the court submits two or more counts charging offenses set forth in the same article of the law, the court may set forth the dates, names of complainants or specific statutory language, without defining the terms, by which the counts may be distinguished; provided, however, that the court shall instruct the jury in its charge that the sole purpose of the notations is to distinguish between the counts; and 3. A written list prepared by the court containing the names of every witness whose testimony has been presented during the trial, if the jury requests such a list and the court, in its discretion, determines that such a list will assist the jury.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2006–2009 · leading case: Monroe v. Kuhlman, 436 F. Supp. 2d 474 (E.D.N.Y. 2006).
Monroe v. Kuhlman, 436 F. Supp. 2d 474 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). “12 (2005) (juror notebooks); N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 310.20 (Con-sol.”
People v. Paulino, 24 Misc. 3d 832 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009). “Conclusions of Law Criminal Procedure Law § 310.20 (1) entitles a deliberating jury to view “[a]ny exhibits received in evidence at the trial which the court, after according the parties an opportunity to be heard upon the matter, in its discretion permits them to take” (see…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.