BILL NUMBER:S5125

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in
relation to jury deliberations

This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of
the Chief Administrative judge upon the recommendation of her Advisory
Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure.

This measure would amend CPL 360.20 to conform the statute to the
procedure used in superior court for selecting a jury.

CPL 360.20 establishes the procedure a local criminal court must use
when selecting a trial jury. It provides that "the court must direct
that the names of six members of the panel be drawn and called" and
that they "must take their places in the jury box and must be
immediately sworn to answer truthfully questions asked them." By
contrast, a jury selection for superior court is done under CPL
270.15, which uses slightly different language. It provides "the court
shall direct that the names of not less than twelve members of the
panel be drawn and called as prescribed by the judiciary law" (CPL
270.15(1), emphasis added). Judges in local criminal court typically
resist the statutory directive that only six names be called and fill
the jury box in the same manner as in superior court.  That procedure,
however, is not technically permitted.

              

There is no rational basis to prevent a local criminal court from
using the more efficient procedure allowed in superior court - where
courts call more than the minimum number of jurors necessary. Indeed,
despite the statutory language of CPL 360.20, the Practice
Commentaries to that section suggest that legislative history and
intent never implied a legislative aim to install different procedures
in the courts:

"The purpose of this section is to make the procedure for jury
selection in the trial of an indictment applicable to the trial of an
information in a local criminal court ... There is one statutory
procedural difference. Section 270.15 was amended in 1981 to
statutorily authorize the court to seat more than twelve prospective
jurors for examination at the same time and no conforming amendment
was made to the present section to authorize the seating of more than
six prospective jurors for examination at one time.

Nevertheless, the obvious thrust of legislative intent under the
present section is that with the exception of the number of jurors to
ultimately comprise the jury - i.e., 6 as opposed to 12 -- the entire
procedure should be the same as the procedure used on trial of an
indictment." (Peter Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons
Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 360.20 at 226).

We recommend that this legislative oversight be corrected and a
conforming amendment be made to CPL 360.20.

This measure take effect immediately, and would apply to all trials
commenced on or after such effective date.


Legislative History:

None. New proposal.