People v. Legister, 75 N.Y.2d 832 (1990)

A jury verdict must be overturned when a juror conducts a private experiment related to a critical issue in the case, and the experiment is revealed with sufficient guarantees of reliability.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial because a juror conducted an unauthorized experiment during deliberations. The juror, seeking to assess the victim’s ability to identify her attacker in a dimly lit room, recreated similar conditions in her hotel room. She then shared her findings with other jurors before they reached a guilty verdict. The court found that this “conscious, contrived experimentation” was directly material to a critical point in the trial, and the risk of prejudice to the defendant was apparent, warranting a new trial.

Facts

During the trial, a key issue was the victim’s ability to identify her attacker in a darkened bedroom.

After two days of deliberation, the jury had not reached a verdict.

One juror, during overnight sequestration, adjusted the lighting and opened the curtains in her hotel room to simulate the crime scene conditions based on the victim’s testimony.

The juror then had another juror walk in and out of the room wearing clothing of a similar color to the attacker’s, to assess whether the victim could have made a reliable identification.

The juror discussed the experiment with some fellow jurors the next morning, and the jury soon returned a guilty verdict.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted at trial.

The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a new trial is required when a juror conducts an experiment related to a critical issue in the case outside of the courtroom and shares the results with other jurors.

Holding

Yes, because the juror’s conduct was conscious, contrived experimentation, directly material to a critical point at issue in the trial, and the risk of prejudice to defendant is apparent.

Court’s Reasoning

The court relied on People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388 (1979), stating the juror’s conduct was “conscious, contrived experimentation, directly material to a critical point at issue in the trial.”

The court emphasized that the victim’s identification was crucial to the prosecution’s case, and the juror’s experiment bolstered the identification with non-record evidence, meaning evidence not subject to challenge by the defendant.

The court noted “the risk of prejudice to defendant is apparent. The victim’s identification of the defendant was crucial to the prosecution’s case and the juror’s experiment bolstered the identification with nonrecord evidence not subject to challenge by the defendant.”

The Court found sufficient guarantees that the report of the juror’s conduct was genuine because she discussed the experiment with some fellow jurors just before the final vote and recounted the story almost immediately after the verdict in a conversation that included both defense counsel and the prosecutor.