Title: The People v. Juan Carlos Aleman

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 69  
The People &c., 
            Respondent, 
        v. 
Juan Carlos Aleman, 
            Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, for appellant.
Alice Wiseman, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed
and the case remitted for a new trial.
In response to a note from the deliberating jury
stating that it was "hopelessly deadlocked" and that some jurors
were inclined to acquit because defendants had spent some time in
- 2 -
No. 69
- 2 -
jail and deserved another chance, the trial court gave a lengthy,
rambling instruction that chided the jury for not "following the
rules" and implied that certain jurors had violated their promise
that they would comply with the court's instructions on the law. 
The court then adjourned deliberations and sent the jury home "to
figure out whether, in your own [conscience], you are willing to
follow the rules."  
The court did not, however, respond to the jury's
statement that it was deadlocked.  By failing to appropriately
address the possible deadlock, the trial court created a
significant risk that jurors would interpret his remonstrations
about "following the rules" as a direction that the jury must
reach a verdict at all costs otherwise it would be breaking the
rules.  These repeated, strident statements by the court were not
balanced by an instruction that jurors must not surrender their
conscientiously held beliefs, as recommended in the pattern
deadlock charge appearing in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see
CJI2d [NY] Deadlock Charge).
Our holding here should not be interpreted as
suggesting that trial courts can do nothing more than parrot the
language in the CJI deadlock charge.  We appreciate that
responses to jury notes must be tailored to the circumstances at
hand, as was the case here where there was a serious
misconception by some jurors as to what were proper
considerations in evaluating the evidence.  But, having
- 3 -
No. 69
- 3 -
determined that a supplemental instruction was necessary, we
cannot condone the court's failure to issue an appropriate and
balanced deadlock instruction that, in tenor and substance,
conveyed the principles reflected in the pattern charge,
supplemented by a focused response to the other issues raised in
the note (see People v Aponte, 2 NY3d 304 [2004]). 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 
Order reversed and a new trial ordered, in a memorandum.  Chief
Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott
and Jones concur.
Decided April 30, 2009