People v. Flores
153 A.D.3d 182
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Four defendants were tried jointly for gang-related violent crimes (including first‑degree gang assault); jurors were referred to only by numbers during selection and trial.
- Defense counsel objected before voir dire, asserting statutory and fairness objections (citing CPL 270.15) and requested at least disclosure of jurors’ names to counsel; the County Court refused.
- County Court explained anonymity as a general practice to encourage juror participation and cited juror safety/privacy concerns from prior trials; it declined to give a neutral explanatory instruction without unanimous defense consent.
- After empanelment, a seated (prospective) juror reported feeling intimidated when one defendant and others stared at her in the courthouse parking lot; the juror was excused and the prosecutor sought bail revocation (denied).
- Jury convicted each defendant on multiple counts; the Appellate Division reversed, holding empanelment of an anonymous jury violated CPL 270.15 and deprived defendants of a fair trial, requiring a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withholding juror names (anonymous jury) violated CPL 270.15 | Issue unpreserved; or if preserved, anonymity was permissible under circumstances | CPL 270.15(1)(a) requires calling juror names; statute permits protective orders only for addresses, not names | Yes—statute requires names to be called; anonymity violated CPL 270.15 (reversal) |
| Preservation of objection to anonymous jury | Claims defendants failed to preserve the issue for appeal | Defense lodged specific contemporaneous objections before voir dire | Preserved—defense objections were timely and specific |
| Whether empaneling anonymous jury deprived defendants of a fair trial and if error is structural/harmless | Any error was harmless on this record; harmless‑error analysis applies | Empaneling anonymous jury undermines presumption of innocence and is a structural error not subject to harmless‑error analysis | Majority: deprivation of self‑standing right to fair trial; error not subject to harmless‑error analysis—reverse and order new trial |
| Other trial rulings (identification suppression; gang expert testimony; sufficiency/weight) | Contend rulings were proper | Defendants raised suppression, expert qualification, sufficiency and weight challenges | Court: identification suppression denial proper; expert testimony admissible; sufficiency/weight claims largely unpreserved but convictions supported on record (court did not reach further because reversal mandated on anonymity) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350 (discussed in context of gang evidence admissibility)
- People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 (a conviction must be reversed when trial error deprived defendant of fundamental right to fair trial)
- People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620 (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency—view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People)
- People v Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366 (harmless‑error principles and factors)
- People v Ayala, 75 N.Y.2d 422 (harmless error standard for nonconstitutional statutory errors)
- United States v Barnes, 604 F.2d 121 (Second Circuit discussion of anonymous juries in federal practice)
- United States v Persico, 832 F.2d 705 (federal two‑step approach: strong reason for protection + reasonable precautions to minimize prejudice)
- United States v Morales, 655 F.3d 608 (7th Cir.; anonymous jury may be permissible but requires caution and minimizing prejudice; courts have applied harmless analysis)
- United States v Wong, 40 F.3d 1347 (discussing risks of anonymity and juror investigation limitations)