Page 21 - The People of the State of New York v. M. Robert Neulander - Brief for Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Respondent

Juror 12.

recognized, if

(Haw. 1994) (when
cardinal right of
Have Served
right to an impartial jury -

to the defendant's conviction.

during deliberations, as a matter of
Proof
C. The People's Recitation of
of
prejudice may be presumed as a matter of
16
nearly as compelling as the People contend.
The People argue that the evidence of
law").
a defendant to a fair trial. . . .
an appellate court concludes that there has been .
.
("Juror misconduct will justify a new trial when ... from .
So, if
.
Alleged Evidence of
misconduct during deliberations deprived [the defendant] of
the fundamental right to a fair trial is undermined -
should uphold the conviction notwithstanding the blatant lack of
Guilt is
As in all these cases, a new trial is required here as a matter of
assurance that there shall be full observance and enforcement of
Irrelevant to the Question Whether the Juror Was Unfit to
law.
the
in any instance,
Not only the individual defendant but the public at large is entitled to
. such other wrong
. extraneous facts
juror engages in significant misconduct and thereby deprives the defendant of
More important, as this Court has
This case was actually a close case, however, and the evidence is not
jurors failed to confirm during voir dire that they would not
as it is when a
hold the defendant's failure to testify against him, and then discussed that failure
law "possible misconduct at voir dire and the
qualification of
a trial by twelve fair
the defendant's alleged guilt is irrelevant:
the
it does not matter whether the errors at trial contributed
guilt was so compelling that the Court
and impartial jurors"); Whitten v. Allstate Ins. Co., 447 So.2d 655, 658 (Ala. 1984)