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. Maximo MERCADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), entered June 27, 2000, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate a judgment of the same court and Justice, rendered February 13, 1996, convicting him, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal impersonation in the second degree, and imposing sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for a hearing on the motion.
In 1996, defendant was convicted, after a jury trial in Bronx County Supreme Court, of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal impersonation in the second degree. Several years later, it came to the attention of the Bronx County District Attorney's office that one of the jurors who sat on the jury which found defendant guilty was himself a convicted felon. The District Attorney's office notified defendant of this circumstance, and defendant moved to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h) on the ground that he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury. In the alternative, defendant requested a hearing. The People opposed on the grounds that defendant alleged no constitutional violation and that he failed to demonstrate any prejudice. The court denied the motion without a hearing finding that no Sixth Amendment right was implicated.
That the convicted felon was disqualified from sitting on the jury pursuant to Judiciary Law § 510(3) does not require a new trial (see, Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78; United States v. Uribe, 890 F.2d 554). However, defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing at which he may attempt to establish that the juror's failure to disclose his conviction resulted in actual bias (United States v. Boney, 68 F.3d 497; United States v. Boney, 977 F.2d 624; see also, Young v. United States, 694 A.2d 891 [D.C.1997] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 08, 2002
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)