People v. Neulander

• Decision Date: 22 October 2019
• Docket Number: No. 71,71
• Citation: 34 N.Y.3d 110,111 N.Y.S.3d 259,135 N.E.3d 302
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. M. Robert NEULANDER, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

34 N.Y.3d 110

135 N.E.3d 302

111 N.Y.S.3d 259

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant,

v.M. Robert NEULANDER, Respondent.

No. 71

Court of Appeals of New York.

October 22, 2019

William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell and Melissa K. Swartz of counsel), for appellant.

Shapiro Arato LLP, New York City (Alexandra A.E. Shapiro and Jacob S. Wolf of counsel), for respondent.

Kostelanetz & Fink, LLP, New York City (Caroline Rule of counsel), and Hafetz & Necheles LLP, New York City (Susan R. Necheles of counsel), for New York Council of Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WILSON, J.

The issue before us is whether the undisputed juror misconduct in this case warrants a reversal of the judgment convicting Dr. Neulander of murder and evidence tampering. The Appellate Division concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict against him based on that juror misconduct. We agree that, on this record, he is entitled to a new trial. "Nothing is more basic to the criminal process than the right of an accused to a trial by an impartial jury" ( People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 652, 415 N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467 [1979] ). We therefore affirm.

In April 2015, a jury convicted Dr. Neulander of murdering his wife and tampering with physical evidence. Throughout the trial, one of the jurors, Juror 12, sent and received hundreds of text messages about the case. Certain text messages sent and received by Juror 12 were troublesome and inconsistent with the trial court's repeated instructions not to discuss the case with any person and to report any attempts by anyone to discuss the case with a juror. Juror 12 also accessed local media websites that were covering the trial extensively. In order to hide her misconduct, Juror 12 lied under oath to the court, deceived the People and the court by providing a false affidavit and tendering doctored text message exchanges in support of that affidavit, selectively deleted other text messages she deemed "problematic," and deleted her now-irretrievable internet browsing history. The cumulative effect of Juror 12's extreme deception and dishonesty compels us to conclude that her "improper conduct ... may have affected a substantial right of defendant" ( CPL 330.30[2] ).

Defendant moved, pursuant to CPL 330.30, to set aside the verdict based on juror misconduct. Upon conclusion of a fact-finding hearing, the trial court determined that Juror 12 consciously engaged in misconduct and prevarication, but nonetheless believed her misconduct did not render the trial unfair. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, reversed the judgment and granted a new trial, with the majority observing that "every defendant has a right to be tried by jurors who follow the court's instructions, do not lie in sworn affidavits about their misconduct during the trial, and do not make substantial efforts to conceal and erase their misconduct when the court conducts an inquiry with respect thereto" ( People v. Neulander, 162 A.D.3d 1763, 1768, 80 N.Y.S.3d 791 [4th Dept. 2018] ). We agree that the extensiveness and egregiousness of the disregard, deception, and dissembling occurring here leave no alternative but to reverse the judgment of conviction and remit for a new trial and compel us to affirm publicly the importance of juror honesty.

Under CPL 330.30, a verdict should be set aside if "improper conduct by a juror ... may have affected a substantial right of the defendant and ... was not known to the defendant prior to the rendition of the verdict." Of course, "not every misstep by a juror rises to the inherently prejudicial level at which reversal is required automatically" ( People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 394, 423 N.Y.S.2d 461, 399 N.E.2d 51 [1979] ); "[e]ach case must be examined on its unique facts" ( People v. Clark, 81 N.Y.2d 913, 914, 597 N.Y.S.2d 646, 613 N.E.2d 552 [1993] ). Under the extraordinary circumstances of this case, we conclude that Juror 12's behavior "may have affected a substantial right of defendant." This is not a case of stray texts or inadvertent misstatements. The record plainly supports the findings of both lower courts that Juror 12's conduct disregarded the court's plentiful instructions as to outside communications and when such conduct was brought to light, the juror was deliberately and repetitively untruthful. During the third day of jury deliberations, when the court first examined Juror 12 as to whether she had violated the court's instructions concerning outside communications, she insisted that she had not, which later proved to be false. When, after the jury had rendered its verdict, an alternate juror advised the court, by affidavit, that Juror 12 had engaged in improper conduct, Juror 12 secretly and selectively deleted numerous text messages which she believed to be "problematic," and presented to the People the remaining portions of the text message exchanges as if they were complete...