People v. Jean
75 N.Y.2d 744, 551 N.E.2d 90, 551 N.Y.S.2d 889 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has broad discretion to impose reasonable time limits on voir dire, and such limits do not violate a defendant's right to a fair trial so long as counsel is afforded a fair opportunity to question prospective jurors about relevant matters.
Facts:
- During jury selection for a criminal trial, the court conducted its own voir dire of three panels of prospective jurors.
- Each prospective juror orally answered a detailed biographical questionnaire administered by the court.
- The court followed up with its own questions to clarify the jurors' answers where necessary.
- The trial court then imposed a 15-minute time limit per attorney for questioning the first two panels of jurors.
- The court imposed a 10-minute time limit per attorney for the third panel.
- As a result of these time limits, defense counsel was unable to question every prospective juror individually.
- Defense counsel was able to direct questions to each of the three panels as a group.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Jean, was prosecuted by the People of New York in a state trial court.
- During jury selection, defense counsel objected to the time limits the court imposed on voir dire.
- Following a trial, the defendant was convicted.
- The defendant (as appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the conviction.
- The defendant (as appellant) then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
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 and violate a defendant's constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury by imposing time limits on attorney-led voir dire after the court itself has already conducted a detailed initial questioning of the prospective jurors?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court (Memorandum)
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion or violate a defendant's constitutional rights by imposing such time limits. Trial courts possess broad discretion to restrict the scope of voir dire to avoid repetitive or irrelevant questioning. Any restrictions must still afford counsel a fair opportunity to question jurors on relevant matters. In this case, the court's own comprehensive questioning provided a significant base of information, and defense counsel was not denied a fair opportunity to probe for bias, as he could still address the panels as a group. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice, as his counsel did not make a record of the specific questions he was precluded from asking when given the chance.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant discretion afforded to trial judges in managing courtroom proceedings, particularly jury selection. It establishes that time limits on voir dire are permissible and will be upheld unless a defendant can demonstrate both that the limits were unreasonable and that they resulted in actual prejudice. The ruling places a burden on counsel to be efficient in their questioning and, critically, to make a specific record of any unasked questions for appellate review. This makes it more difficult to successfully challenge voir dire restrictions on appeal, prioritizing judicial economy alongside the right to an impartial jury.
