People v. Furey
961 N.E.2d 668, 18 N.Y.3d 284 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prospective juror's close personal and professional relationships with numerous key witnesses creates an implied bias that requires their removal for cause, even if the juror provides unequivocal assurances of their ability to be impartial.
Facts:
- Scott Furey was charged with committing burglary and kidnapping against his former girlfriend.
- Captain Comerford of the City of Oswego Police Department was the supervising officer who assigned the case to an investigating detective.
- Captain Comerford's wife, Mrs. Comerford, was subsequently called for jury duty in Furey's trial.
- During jury selection, Mrs. Comerford disclosed that she was acquainted with 8 of the 14 potential prosecution witnesses.
- The witnesses she knew included seven police officers who worked with her husband and one assistant district attorney.
- Mrs. Comerford stated she had long-standing relationships with two of the police officers in particular, whom she had known for three and ten years respectively and had contact with on a monthly basis.
Procedural Posture:
- During voir dire in County Court, the defense moved to dismiss prospective juror Mrs. Comerford for cause.
- The trial court denied the for-cause challenge.
- The defense then used a peremptory challenge to remove Mrs. Comerford and subsequently exhausted its allotment of peremptory challenges.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted defendant Scott Furey of kidnapping and burglary.
- Furey (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the lower court's judgment.
- The New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted defendant Furey (appellant) leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion as a matter of law by denying a defendant's for-cause challenge to a prospective juror who has personal and professional relationships with more than half of the prosecution's potential witnesses?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law. A prospective juror who has a pre-existing relationship with a potential witness that is likely to preclude them from rendering an impartial verdict must be dismissed for cause. This 'implied bias' requires automatic exclusion, regardless of whether the prospective juror declares they can be fair and impartial. The court reasoned that the risk of prejudice from such close relationships is so great that a simple oath of impartiality cannot cure the taint. In this case, Mrs. Comerford's husband supervised the investigation, and she knew more than half of the People's witnesses, including frequent personal and professional contact with several key police officers. These relationships created a considerable risk that she could 'unwittingly give undue credence' to the witnesses she knew and would give rise to the perception that the defendant did not receive a fair trial.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and strengthens the doctrine of implied bias in jury selection. It clarifies that the nature and frequency of a juror's relationships with multiple witnesses can, as a matter of law, require disqualification, rendering the juror's own assurances of impartiality irrelevant. The ruling serves as a directive to trial courts to err on the side of disqualifying jurors with such extensive connections to witnesses to protect both the reality and the perception of a fair trial. Consequently, this precedent will be used to argue for the automatic exclusion of jurors who have significant social or professional ties to law enforcement or other key witnesses in a case.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Furey