Resolving the Conflict Between the Temporarily Unavailable Juror and New York's Mandatory 24-Hour Limit on the Separation of Jurors During Deliberations

Authors

Michael Pasinkoff

Document Type

Article

Abstract

(Excerpt)

Allowing defendants to move for and obtain mistrials based upon a delay in resuming jury deliberations does nothing to render the process fairer or to protect any right of a defendant. Granting these applications in the absence of prejudice to a defendant wastes scarce and valuable judicial resources, requires the state to unnecessarily retry a case, and makes witnesses again take time from their lives to testify in court. Indeed, in many cases, a defendant is afforded a tactical advantage by forcing the state to retry the case. There are of course occasions when the law accepts conferring a tactical advantage on a defendant as “a tolerable side effect of the protection of defendants’ most basic rights,” but there is no right of a defendant that is affected when a jury deliberation recess is extended beyond the period specified in CPL § 310.10(2).