People v. Furey, 18 N.Y.3d 84 (2011)
A prospective juror with personal and professional relationships with numerous potential witnesses must be disqualified for cause, even if they claim impartiality, due to the risk of implied bias.
Summary
Scott Furey was convicted of kidnapping and burglary. During jury selection, a prospective juror, Mrs. Comerford, revealed close relationships with several police officer witnesses, including frequent professional and some personal contact. The defense challenged her for cause, arguing implied bias. The trial court denied the challenge, relying on Mrs. Comerford’s assurance of impartiality. Furey used a peremptory challenge to remove her and eventually exhausted all peremptory challenges. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by not disqualifying Mrs. Comerford for cause because her relationships with the witnesses created an unacceptable risk of bias, irrespective of her assurances.
Facts
Defendant Scott Furey was charged with burglary and kidnapping of his former girlfriend. During jury selection, Mrs. Comerford, the wife of a police captain, was a prospective juror. She knew several potential prosecution witnesses, who were police officers working with her husband. Specifically, she had frequent professional and some personal contact with at least two officers and knew them for several years. She also knew the assistant district attorney on the case. In total, she was acquainted with 8 of the 14 potential witnesses for the prosecution.
Procedural History
The County Court denied the defense’s challenge for cause against Mrs. Comerford. Furey used a peremptory challenge to remove her. Furey was convicted in County Court. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law when it denied the defendant’s challenge for cause of a prospective juror who had personal and professional relationships with several of the witnesses expected to testify at the defendant’s trial, despite the juror’s assurances of impartiality?
Holding
Yes, because Mrs. Comerford’s familiarity with numerous witnesses satisfied the implied bias standard, necessitating her removal for cause, irrespective of her assurances of impartiality.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPL 270.20(1)(c) allows a challenge for cause if a prospective juror’s relationship with a witness is likely to preclude an impartial verdict, creating an “implied bias.” Such bias cannot be cured by an expurgatory oath because the risk of prejudice is too great. The Court emphasized the need for caution, leaning towards disqualification when impartiality is dubious. While not all relationships require disqualification, the frequency and nature of the relationship are crucial. Here, Mrs. Comerford’s close professional and social relationships with many witnesses (including those involved in the investigation) created a considerable risk she could unwittingly give undue credence to their testimony. The court emphasized that such a situation creates the perception that the defendant might not receive a fair trial. The court stated, “[T]he risk of prejudice arising out of the close relationship… [is] so great that recital of an oath of impartiality could not convincingly dispel the taint.” Therefore, denying the challenge for cause was an abuse of discretion.