Judge’s misreading of jury note leads to new trial for jailed defendant

March 31, 2014 By Charisma L. Miller, Esq. Brooklyn Daily Eagle

Screen Shot 2014-03-31 at 9.34.08 AM.png

Share this:

A Queens judge’s incorrect handling of a jury communication led the Brooklyn appellate court to order a new trial for an imprisoned defendant.

New York law permits a jury to request clarification on points of law, to review trial transcript or other admitted evidence as they take part in the civil task and responsibility of deliberating a criminal defendant’s guilt over innocence and punishment over leniency.

In 2011, a Queens jury convicted defendant Thomas on four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree. During jury deliberations, the jury submitted a number of notes to the presiding judge. In one such note, the jury asked “to have the law read back to us.” With that particular note, the judge read the note in the presence of the prosecution and defense counsel and proceeded to reread to the jury the specific law.

In another instance, the jury requested “clarification on the counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.” Instead of reading the full and exact contents of the jury’s note, the lower trial judge told defense counsel and prosecution that the jury simply asked “to have read to us the counts of” criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

The judge then read, verbatim, the law related to criminal possession of a weapon in the 2nd degree. It was the handling of this note that appeared controversial to the defense and in error by the Brooklyn appellate panel.

When addressing jury questions, judges are required to provide defense counsel with meaningful notice of the jury’s request. The purpose of this requirement is so that counsel can effectively and adequately protect the defendant’s right. According to the court, “[M]eaningful notice of a jury’s note ‘means notice of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request.”

Here, “[t]he jury’s request for “clarification” was not a request for a “mere ministerial readback” of the [law], the Appellate Division 2nd Department panel noted in its written decision. The presiding trial judge did not provide meaningful notice, the court held, as the lower judge did not address the specific content of the jury’s note. The jury asked for clarification—an explanation—of 2nd degree criminal possession.

The lower court judge failed to notify counsel that the jury asked specifically for “clarification” of the legal statute.

Simply re-reading the statute without noting the jury’s request for actual clarification as to what the statute means, denied Thomas meaningful notice of the jury’s request, the panel contended.

Given the lower court’s error, Thomas’ conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered.

As Thomas was convicted along with three other co-defendants, the convictions of all defendants were reversed with new trials ordered.

Appellate Division, 2nd Department Justices Reinaldo Rivera, Ruth Balkin, Sylvia Hinds-Radix and Joseph Maltese sat on the deciding panel.