People v. Riley
Decision Date | 27 December 1963 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas J. RILEY, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Evariste G. Lavigne, Albany, for appellant.
John T. Garry, II, Dist. Atty., Albany, for respondent, J. Raymond Fisher, Albany, of counsel.
Before BERGAN, P. J., and GIBSON, HERLIHY, REYNOLDS and TAYLOR, JJ.
After the jurors had deliberated throughout the afternoon and until late in the evening the Trial Court caused them to be returned to the courtroom and addressed them as follows:
The Trial Court's remarks to the jury were coercive, within the holding of People v. Josey, 19 A.D.2d 660, 241 N.Y.S.2d 620, in which the instructions and remarks were similar in substance and purport to those in the record before us; and, quite obviously, the persuasion was rendered even more effective by the court's act in sending an officer to the jury room, very soon after deliberations had been resumed, to obtain the jurors' addresses, following which, as the jurors were advised, officers were to procure from the jurors' respective homes, well...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jackson
...prejudicial as to warrant reversal and remand for a new trial. (cf. People v. Hill, 44 A.D. 2d 813, 355 N.Y.S.2d 612; People v. Riley, 20 A.D.2d 599, 245 N.Y.S.2d 439; People v. Josey, 19 A.D.2d 660, 241 N.Y.S.2d Nor may the errors be disregarded, as does the majority in concluding that the......
-
People v. Washington
...113, 209 N.E.2d 729). Neither did the court's direction to continue deliberations constitute coercion (id.). Unlike People v. Riley, 20 A.D.2d 599, 245 N.Y.S.2d 439, relied upon by the defendant, but which is clearly inapposite since the jury in that case returned a verdict within five minu......
-
Carson v. State, 87-201
...Cir.1982); Cummings v. State, 239 Ark. 1027, 396 S.W.2d 298 (1965); State v. Mayfield, Mo., 506 S.W.2d 363 (1974); People v. Riley, 20 A.D.2d 599, 245 N.Y.S.2d 439 (1963). Finding that discretion was not abused in the denial of the demonstrative display of an unidentified fuzz-buster, we af......
-
People v. Martino
...fifteen minute time limitation could not help but coerce the verdict (People v. Hill, 44 A.D.2d 813, 355 N.Y.S.2d 612; People v. Riley, 20 A.D.2d 599, 245 N.Y.S.2d 439). In light of the foregoing disposition it is not necessary to consider the other points raised by All concur, except CAPOZ......