People v. Chambers
| Decision Date | 19 March 2002 |
| Citation | 97 N.Y.2d 417,766 N.E.2d 953,740 N.Y.S.2d 291 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>QUINTIN CHAMBERS, Appellant. |
Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of counsel), for appellant.
Howard R. Relin, District Attorney, Rochester (Wendy Evans Lehmann and Stephen K. Lindley of counsel), for respondent.
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. The sole issue on appeal is whether a prospective juror should have been excused for cause after acknowledging during voir dire that in his view, "trained police officers are good observers" and that he "would tend to believe police testimony to some degree." The following colloquy occurred:
Defense counsel moved to excuse the prospective juror for cause, arguing that he would be biased toward police testimony. After the trial court denied the challenge, the defense excused the prospective juror by peremptory challenge, and subsequently exhausted its peremptory challenges. A divided Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
As we have repeatedly made clear, a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial. Here, as the Appellate Division majority correctly concluded, even if the prospective juror's statements raised a serious doubt, he ultimately stated unequivocally that he could be fair.
Defendant argues that while "no" alone would have been unequivocal, the prospective juror's answer—"No, I don't think so"—was equivocal. "Think," however, is not a talismanic word that automatically makes a statement equivocal (see People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 79 [1982] []). The juror's statements here, taken in context and as a whole, were unequivocal. Thus, it was not error for the trial court to deny defendant's challenge for cause.
We add this observation. Time and again this Court has been called upon to measure a particular statement by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Phillips, 04-CV-0826(VEB)
...statements, " 'taken in context and as a whole, were unequivocal' that she could be impartial[.]" Id. (quoting Chambers, 97 N.Y.2d at 419, 740 N.Y.S.2d 291, 766 N.E.2d 953). Although Parker states in his reply memorandum of law that Sekuterski was "incompetent," Pet'r Reply Mem. at 35, 36, ......
-
Bethea v. Walsh, 09-CV-5037 (NGG)
...that these jurors made statements raising "a serious doubt regarding [their] ability to be impartial." Cf. People v. Chambers, 766 N.E.2d 953, 955 (N.Y. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring unequivocal assertion of impartiality from jurors whose statements did raise "a serious doubt"). 16. The cri......
-
People v. Rosa
...an impartial verdict ( People v. Wright, 30 N.Y.3d 933, 934, 66 N.Y.S.3d 145, 88 N.E.3d 303 [2017] ; see People v. Chambers, 97 N.Y.2d 417, 419, 740 N.Y.S.2d 291, 766 N.E.2d 953 [2002] ). The juror's comment that that she would be "sympathetic" to the fact that a victim of abuse could "take......
-
People v. Piasta
...suggestion, " ‘[t]hink’ ... is not a talismanic word that automatically makes a statement equivocal" ( People v. Chambers , 97 N.Y.2d 417, 419, 740 N.Y.S.2d 291, 766 N.E.2d 953 [2002] ). The record here shows that the prospective juror's statements, "taken in context and as a whole, were un......
-
Rethinking Police Expertise.
...J. CRIM. L. 455, 500-01 (1999). (31.) State v. Anderson, 34,670 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/9/01); 786 So. 2d 917, 925; see People v. Chambers, 766 N.E.2d 953, 954 (N.Y. 2002). (32.) E.g., Dane Cnty. v. Baxter, 2007 Wl App 203, f 14, 305 Wis. 2d 378, 738 N.W.2d 191; United States v. Williams, 979 F.......