6 N.Y.3d 530 (2006)

A defendant is deprived of the right to a fair trial when the presiding judge abdicates control over critical aspects of the jury trial process, particularly jury selection and instructions, requiring the prosecutor to improperly assume those responsibilities.

Summary

Defendant was convicted of assault and endangering the welfare of an incompetent person. The Court of Appeals reversed the County Court order affirming the conviction and ordered a new trial. The Court found the town justice presiding over the trial was unfamiliar with jury trial mechanics and repeatedly ceded control to the prosecutor regarding jury selection, preliminary and final instructions, and managing jury deliberations. This abdication of judicial responsibility deprived the defendant of a fair trial, necessitating a new trial.

Facts

The defendant was convicted of assault in the third degree and endangering the welfare of an incompetent person after a jury trial presided over by a town justice.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted at trial. The County Court affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the County Court’s order and ordered a new trial.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant was deprived of her right to a fair trial when the presiding judge demonstrated unfamiliarity with jury trial mechanics and relinquished control over critical aspects of the proceedings to the prosecutor.

Holding

Yes, because the judge’s lack of control over jury selection, instructions, and management of deliberations, with the prosecutor stepping in to fill the void, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that the town justice demonstrated a profound unfamiliarity with the proper procedures for conducting a jury trial. Specifically, the judge:

1. Attempted to seat a jury before voir dire.
2. Failed to elicit basic information from prospective jurors.
3. Issued an oath to the jurors that did not comply with statutory requirements.
4. Required the prosecutor to correct and guide him during preliminary and final jury instructions.
5. Allowed the prosecutor to instruct the jury on the correct procedure for requesting evidence during deliberations.

The Court relied on precedent establishing that a judge must maintain control over jury selection (citing People v. Toliver, 89 NY2d 843, 844 [1996]) and jury deliberations (citing People v. Bayes, 78 NY2d 546, 551 [1991]). By ceding control to the prosecutor in these critical areas, the judge failed to satisfy his obligation to ensure the integrity of the proceedings. The court stated the judge “relinquish[ed] control” over the jury selection process.

The court also emphasized the impropriety of the prosecutor “assum[ing] the important function of maintaining control of jury deliberations.” The cumulative effect of these errors was so prejudicial that it warranted a new trial.