Page 32 - The People of the State of New York v. M. Robert Neulander - Brief for Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Respondent

supra.

irrelevant."
disregarded

the juror had been out of
that a juror may be biased, the

"casually discussed the events of

7 As Mr. Neulander's counsel points out, Brief
27

dishonesty, that Juror 12's "intentions were pure."
evidence, and attempted to conceal that destruction.

R.35.
infinitely more attenuated than Juror 12's o~tright lies here.
United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83, 100-01 (2d Cir. 2015).
It is extraordinary that the trial court found, in the face of
for Def.-Resp. at pp.25-26, if
anything but "pure," and the People cannot demonstrate otherwise. 7

It is difficult to
demonstrated her willingness to lie to the court in chambers and under oath.
Juror 12's conduct was
touch for 10 y~ars until they had lunch together and
disclose this desultory friendship with someone uninvolved in the case was is
the court's instructions, lied and perjured herself, tried to destroy
See also pp. 20-24,
the facts suggest
the intervening 10 years"; the juror's failure to
Finally, in People v. Rodriguez, 100 N.Y.2d 30, 35 (2003), a juror concealed his
juror's own statements about her ability to be impartial "become
comprehend how the court could have reached that conclusion, after Juror 12 had
acquaintance with a prosecutor who was not involved in the case, and with whom
Juror 12's grievous