Senate Bill S7373

                                 BILL NUMBER:  S7373

 TITLE OF BILL :  An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in
relation to suspending 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 the Criminal Procedure Law to allow a trial
court to suspend jury deliberations for up to three days (excluding
weekends and holidays) in appropriate cases.

In 1995, the Legislature gave trial courts discretion to forego
sequestration in most cases (L. 1995, c. 83). Over the next several
years, the Legislature required the Chief Administrative Judge and the
Office of Court Administration to conduct an annual study of the
change and file a report with the Governor, the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly. The reports found that there
were significant cost-savings to the change and that eliminating
sequestration did not result in an increase in jury tampering or an
increase the number of mistrials. After five years, the Legislature
made permanent the changes and expanded the reach of the statute to
permit trial courts to forego sequestration in all cases (L. 2001, c.
47).

              

A trial court's discretion is not unfettered, however, and the current
statute provides that a court may only suspend jury deliberations "for
a reasonable period of time . . . not to exceed twenty-four hours"
(CPL 310.10(2)). Undoubtedly, the twenty-four hour limit is intended
to permit deliberating jurors to go home each night and return on the
next day when the court is in session. Unfortunately, circumstances
often arise that make it impossible to reconvene the jury within
twenty-four hours, as was illustrated in a recent case arising in
Kings County (see People v Taylor, 32 Misc 3d 546  Sup Ct, Kings
County 2011, Del Giudice, J. ). In Taylor, a deliberating juror was
briefly hospitalized and unable to return to court to resume further
deliberations the following day. The defense immediately moved for a
mistrial, claiming that the express language of CPL 310.10(2)
prevented the court from adjourning deliberations more than 24 hours,
even though the juror would be available one day later. There were no
indications of juror tampering nor did it appear that jury
deliberations would be impeded by the additional delay caused by the
juror's hospitalization. The case highlights the inflexibility of the
statute, and the court urged legislative action to amend the statute.

We believe that the arbitrary limit of twenty-four hours should be
relaxed in appropriate cases. While our Advisory Committee initially
considered recommending elimination of the twenty-four hour
restriction altogether and allowing courts discretion to suspend
deliberations "for a reasonable period of time," it ultimately favored
an approach that provides courts with more, but not unfettered,
discretion. Thus, this measure allows the court to suspend jury
deliberations and separate the jury until the close of business on the
next day, or "for good cause shown," until the close of business on
the third day following the recess. By requiring "good cause" for any
suspension longer than one business day, the measure insures that
lengthy suspensions of jury deliberations will not become routine.

This measure, which would have no meaningful fiscal impact on the
State, would take effect immediately, and shall apply to all criminal
actions pending on or after such effective date.

 2015-16 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

OCA 2015-44
Assembly 7031 (M. of A. Lentol) (referred to Codes)

 2012 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

OCA 2012-77
Senate 6679 (Sen. Saland) (Committed to Rules)