Legal Opinion
People v. Jeanty
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 4, 2000PublishedCited by 93 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Ciparick, J.
These three appeals require us to consider the 1996 amendments to CPL 270.35 and to determine whether Supreme Court in each case properly applied the revised statute to discharge and replace sworn jurors with alternates. We conclude that the Legislature intended to create a bright-line rule in amending the statute. As CPL 270.35 (2) now permits, once the court has conducted a reasonably thorough inquiry into an absent juror’s whereabouts and possible time of return, if it is determined that the juror will not appear within two hours after the time the trial is.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. BufordNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. PageNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- People v. Mobil Oil Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
- People v. RyanNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
- People v. AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by93 opinions
- Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hospital of the PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- People v. KimesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- People v. TyrellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. BallardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- People v. LeaderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.