Opinion ID: 2014418
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prospective Juror S.C.

Text: S.C. worked as a corrections officer on Rikers Island. In response to a question on the written juror questionnaire asking what life without parole meant to him, he wrote 3 hots and a cot, free medical, $50[,]000 a year wasted. When asked about this answer during voir dire, S.C. said that he was just being sarcastic, and that 3 hots and a cot was [a] saying he had picked up at Rikers Island, which made him feel pretty foolish now that [defense counsel] read it back to [him]. He repeatedly assured the trial court and the parties that he could be fair and impartial. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's rejection of his for cause challenge to S.C., arguing that S.C.'s representations of fairness and impartiality lacked candor, and that his cavalier manner rendered him unfit to serve. By denying defendant's challenge, however, the trial court found S.C. to be truthful. As we observed long ago, it was for the [trial] court to say, from the whole examination of the juror, including his appearance and demeanor, whether he was fit and competent to perform fairly and impartially ( People v Carolin, 115 NY 658, 659 [1889]; see also People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 613 [2000] [determination of whether prospective juror is qualified is committed largely to judgment of the Trial Judge with his peculiar opportunities to make a fair evaluation (internal quotation marks omitted)]). Here, the trial court took into consideration all of the answers that [the juror] provided to the Court and his willingness to put aside whatever his personal opinions might be and take the law as the Court gave it to him, and denied the challenge. The trial court acted within its discretion in making this determination.