People v. Provenzano, 50 N.Y.2d 420 (1980)
A potential juror’s generalized support for a political party or attendance at rallies does not automatically create a relationship likely to preclude impartial jury service; a more direct and personal connection is required.
Summary
Anthony Provenzano and Harold Konigsberg were convicted of murder. The Appellate Division reversed, citing the trial court’s refusal to dismiss a juror, Mrs. Thomas, who had campaigned for the prosecutor in a prior election. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the limited political association between the juror and prosecutor did not, as a matter of law, create a relationship likely to preclude impartial jury service. The court distinguished this case from situations involving direct and personal relationships, emphasizing that generalized political support is insufficient to mandate disqualification. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division to consider other arguments raised by the defendants.
Facts
Anthony Castellito, a union official, disappeared in 1961. Fifteen years later, Anthony Provenzano and Harold Konigsberg were charged and convicted of his murder based on circumstantial evidence, admissions, and accomplice testimony.
During jury selection, a potential juror, Mrs. Thomas, revealed she had met the trial prosecutor, Michael Kavanagh, at political rallies and belonged to the same political club. She had campaigned for Kavanagh when he ran for District Attorney, as part of her support for her entire party’s ticket.
The defense challenged Mrs. Thomas for cause, but the trial court denied the challenge. The defense then used a peremptory challenge to remove her, eventually exhausting all peremptory challenges.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted Provenzano and Konigsberg of first-degree murder.
The Appellate Division reversed the conviction based solely on the trial court’s refusal to dismiss juror Thomas for cause and ordered a new trial.
The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the relationship between a potential juror and the trial prosecutor, based on limited political association and generalized support during an election campaign, is of such a nature that it is likely to preclude the juror from rendering an impartial verdict, thus requiring dismissal for cause under CPL 270.20 (subd 1, par [c]).
Holding
No, because the relationship was not of such a direct and personal nature that it was likely to preclude the juror from rendering an impartial verdict.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPL 270.20 (subd 1, par [c]) disqualifies potential jurors who bear a relationship to the defendant, victim, witness, or attorneys that is “likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict.” The court distinguished this case from People v. Branch, where a juror’s close professional and social relationship with the prosecuting attorney warranted disqualification.
The court emphasized the difference between generalized political support and direct, personal involvement. Mrs. Thomas’s limited association with the prosecutor, stemming from shared political affiliation and campaign support for the party ticket, did not demonstrate a relationship that would likely bias her. The court stated, “Merely generalized support for the candidates of one party or attendance at political rallies does not signal a relationship which would preclude fairness on the part of a prospective juror.”
While the District Attorney conceded that he would consent to the challenge in similar circumstances, and the trial judge perhaps should have erred on the side of caution, the Court of Appeals found that the failure to disqualify Mrs. Thomas was not, as a matter of law, reversible error. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for consideration of the defendants’ other arguments.