People v. Gajadhar, 9 N.Y.3d 438 (2007)

A criminal defendant, in a non-capital case, can waive the right to a 12-person jury and consent to a deliberating jury of fewer than 12 individuals, provided the waiver is made in writing and in open court with the approval of the judge.

Summary

After jury deliberations commenced, a juror became ill and was hospitalized. The defendant, Winston Gajadhar, opposed a mistrial and requested that deliberations continue with the remaining 11 jurors. The trial court granted the request, and the defendant executed a written waiver of his right to a jury of 12 in open court. The New York Court of Appeals held that the waiver was valid, interpreting Article I, Section 2 of the New York Constitution to permit a defendant to consent to a deliberating jury of less than 12 under these circumstances. This decision modifies the rigid adherence to a 12-person jury established in prior case law, recognizing a defendant’s ability to waive this right under specific conditions.

Facts

Winston Gajadhar and his business associate, Tony Norng, believed that Sammi Fiki owed them $1,500. Gajadhar went to Fiki’s office to collect the money. An altercation ensued, during which Mosad, Hisham, and Fiki were shot. Mosad died, while Fiki and Hisham survived. Police suspected Gajadhar, but he fled to Trinidad. He eventually returned to the U.S. and made incriminating statements to a coworker who was cooperating with the FBI. Gajadhar again evaded capture, returning to Trinidad. He was eventually detained and extradited to New York.

Procedural History

Gajadhar was tried before a 12-member jury. After deliberations began, one juror became ill. The defendant, wanting to avoid a retrial, requested that deliberations continue with 11 jurors. The trial court granted the request after Gajadhar executed a written waiver. Gajadhar was acquitted of several charges but convicted of attempted robbery and felony murder. On appeal, Gajadhar argued that the state constitution does not allow a defendant to consent to a jury of less than 12 members. The Appellate Division rejected this argument, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue(s)

Whether Article I, Section 2 of the New York Constitution permits a defendant in a non-capital criminal case to waive the right to a 12-person jury and consent to continued deliberations by a jury of fewer than 12 members after deliberations have begun and a juror becomes unavailable.

Holding

Yes, because the 1938 amendments to Article I, Section 2 of the New York Constitution allow a defendant in a non-capital criminal case to waive the right to a jury trial, and this waiver extends to the size of the jury, provided the waiver is made in writing and in open court with the approval of the judge.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that while the common law traditionally required a 12-person jury, the 1938 amendments to the New York Constitution modified this requirement by allowing defendants in non-capital criminal cases to waive their right to a jury trial. The court distinguished its prior holding in Cancemi v. People, 18 N.Y. 128 (1858), which prohibited such waivers, noting that Cancemi was decided before the constitutional amendments that explicitly authorized jury trial waivers in criminal cases. Because a defendant can waive a jury trial entirely and have a judge act as the finder of fact, the Court reasoned that it logically follows that a defendant can also waive the right to a full 12-person jury and consent to deliberations by 11 jurors when one becomes unavailable. The Court emphasized that the waiver must be made in writing, signed by the defendant in open court, and approved by the judge, ensuring it is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The court noted that “the constitution now entrusts to a defendant the decision whether to allow a jury to continue deliberating with 11 members when a juror becomes unexpectedly unavailable. Therefore, the rights guaranteed by article I, section 2 are personal to the accused.” This decision aligns the right to a jury trial with other fundamental constitutional rights that a defendant can waive. The Court also noted that an 11-member jury does not violate the federal constitution, citing Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).