Oglesby v. McKinney, 8 N.Y.3d 561 (2007)
Jurors for a criminal trial in a City Court may be selected from the residents of the county in which the city is located, even if they are not city residents.
Summary
This case addresses whether jurors in a New York City Court criminal trial must be selected exclusively from city residents or whether the jury pool can include all county residents. The defendant, Bradwell, challenged the jury panel because it included county residents who were not city residents. The City Court granted his motion, but the Supreme Court reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that Judiciary Law § 500 does not mandate that city court juries be comprised solely of city residents. The court reasoned that county-wide jury selection is permissible unless a specific statute or regulation provides otherwise, and that excluding county residents does not violate the defendant’s right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.
Facts
Reginald Bradwell was being prosecuted in Syracuse City Court for theft of services and resisting arrest. Prior to trial, Bradwell moved to strike the jury panel, arguing that many of the potential jurors, while residents of Onondaga County, did not reside within the city of Syracuse. The City Court initially granted Bradwell’s motion, ordering the County Commissioner of Jurors to provide a new panel consisting only of Syracuse residents.
Procedural History
The Commissioner of Jurors and the District Attorney sought review of the City Court’s order via a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the judge and Bradwell in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the petition, prohibiting the enforcement of the City Court’s order. The Appellate Division modified this ruling, finding prohibition inappropriate but converting the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action. The Appellate Division ultimately agreed with the Supreme Court on the merits, declaring that Judiciary Law § 500 does not require city court juries to be exclusively composed of city residents. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed this decision.
Issue(s)
Whether Judiciary Law § 500 mandates that a county commissioner of jurors provide a defendant in a criminal action in city court with a panel of prospective jurors comprised solely of residents of the city.
Holding
No, because Judiciary Law § 500 does not explicitly require that jurors in City Court criminal trials be exclusively residents of the city where the court is located; county-wide selection is permissible unless otherwise specified by statute or regulation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that while Judiciary Law § 500 does not explicitly mandate county-wide jury selection, it implies that it is the norm. The court cited related statutes, such as Judiciary Law § 502(a), which establishes the office of Commissioner of Jurors for each county, and Judiciary Law § 506, which requires the Commissioner to select jurors from lists of county residents. These statutes, according to the court, suggest that county-wide selection is generally permissible unless a specific statute or regulation provides otherwise. The Court acknowledged that some regulations, like 22 NYCRR 128.7(a) for Town and Village Courts, allow for more geographically limited jury pools. However, no such provision exists for City Courts. The Court also rejected the argument that county-wide jury selection violates a defendant’s constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. The Court stated, “We know of no authority, and none has been cited to us, suggesting that the ‘community’ from which a jury is selected must be identical to the area over which the court has jurisdiction.” The court further argued that limiting City Court juries to city residents could potentially disadvantage defendants in felony cases by diverting jurors away from County Court felony trials. The court concluded that Commissioner Oglesby’s procedure of drawing jurors from the entire county did not violate any law or regulation or Bradwell’s constitutional rights.