Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kamal GAJADHAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.) rendered December 18, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts) and sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and sentencing him, as a violent felony offender, to three terms of 10 to 20 years, a term of 6 to 12 years, and two terms of 3 to 6 years, all to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to conduct an inquiry when, during jury deliberations, and after the alternates had been dismissed, defense counsel apprised the court of a conversation with a released alternate who had reported that during the trial a sitting juror had been having trouble understanding the proceedings and had been aided by other jurors. The court relied on its own observations and the parties' voir dire to determine that the juror fully understood the trial testimony and did not have a language problem. The court, noting that defense counsel's complaints were based on the hearsay statements of a panelist who was no longer a part of the trial when the statements were made, declined to conduct an inquiry into the sitting juror's conduct. We find no indicia of juror “misconduct” (see, People v. Clark, 81 N.Y.2d 913, 914, 597 N.Y.S.2d 646, 613 N.E.2d 552) or of prejudice to the defense (see, People v. Irizarry, 83 N.Y.2d 557, 561, 611 N.Y.S.2d 807, 634 N.E.2d 179) to require an inquiry. There was no claim made that the subject juror had improperly discussed the facts of the case or come to any conclusion as to defendant's guilt (compare, People v. McClenton, 213 A.D.2d 1, 4-5, 630 N.Y.S.2d 290, appeal dismissed, 88 N.Y.2d 872, 645 N.Y.S.2d 442, 668 N.E.2d 413). The court had a full opportunity to observe the sitting juror and was unaware of anything that might have lent credence to defense counsel's claims (see, People v. Gillis, 213 A.D.2d 422, 623 N.Y.S.2d 608, lv. denied, 85 N.Y.2d 973, 629 N.Y.S.2d 733, 653 N.E.2d 629).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 13, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)