Page 26 - The People of the State of New York v. M. Robert Neulander - Brief for Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Respondent

(

[
A

right to a fair trial.
misdemeanor or a felony.
347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954)).

may be subject to influences of
Supp.2d 125,133 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).

21

effect on a juror cannot accurately be determined.
with the jurors was harmless to the defendant.
a misdemeanor, the juror might have believed that, if
See,
would serve time in county jail rather than state prison.
Although this presumption of

People v. Harris, 526 N.E.2d 335,342 (Ill. 1988) (citingRemmer v.
People v. Santana, 58 Misc. 3d 581,589 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 2017)
prejudice is not
The People's burden is a heavy one, since prejudicial extrajudicial
e.g., Arkwright v.
asked an attorney during the trial whether involuntary manslaughter was a
conclusive, a burden rests on the State to establish that such contact
As the Illinois Supreme Court has held:
]ny communication with a juror during trial about a matter pending
before the jury is deemed presumptively prejudicial to the defendant's
convicted, the defendant
For example, in People v. Honeycutt, 570 P.2d 1050 (Cal. 1977), a juror
communications with a juror cannot be undone after the fact, and their possible
with the juror was harmless to the defendant," United States v. Morrison, 984 F.
which they themselves may often be unaware.");
The California Supreme
Steinbugler, 283 A.D. 397, 399 (2d Dep't 1954) (''jurors are but individuals, and
burden rests heavily upon the Government to establish ... that [third party] contact
United States,
extrajudicial influences may "have a subtle or unconscious impact on the jurors").
Because the attorney incorrectly advised that it could be