81 N.Y.2d 913 (1993)

A defendant seeking to overturn a verdict based on juror misconduct must demonstrate that the misconduct may have affected a substantial right, and the mere fact that a juror had contact with a potential alibi witness does not automatically warrant reversal if the defendant cannot show inherent prejudice.

Summary

Kevin Clark was convicted of murder and attempted murder. After the verdict, Clark moved to set it aside, arguing that a juror had been in contact with his potential alibi witness during the trial. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the convictions of Clark’s codefendants but affirmed Clark’s conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed Clark’s conviction, holding that he failed to demonstrate how the juror’s misconduct prejudiced his substantial rights, especially given indications that the juror initially favored him during deliberations. The dissent argued that the juror’s knowledge of the witness’s decision not to testify created an inherent bias.

Facts

Kevin Clark was tried jointly with two codefendants for murder and attempted murder. Clark presented an alibi defense, claiming he was with his neighbor, Zavia Collins, on the night of the murder. Collins did not testify. After the guilty verdicts, it was discovered that a juror, Jacqueline Crumm, had a close, long-standing relationship with Collins and had discussed Collins potentially testifying for Clark. Collins told Crumm she was asked to testify for Clark and Crumm told her to