Opinion ID: 2002287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: People v Johnson and People v Sharper

Text: Defendants Karim Johnson and Chance Sharper were indicted in connection with a robbery at a Manhattan recording studio. Their defense was based on police incompetence. The relevant record regarding a challenged prospective juror follows in full. Trial Judge: [A] number of witnesses who will be testifying are police officers, they are to be treated the same as any other witness, they are entitled to no greater weight or lesser weight just because they are police officers. Can you treat their testimony the same as any other witness and hold them to the same standard as you would any witness?    And [Prospective Juror 7?] Prospective Juror 7: I have a friend in the Manhattan DA's office, and I deal with both prisoners and police officers. Trial Judge: Speak up a little bit. Prospective Juror 7: I deal with both prisoners and police officers. Trial Judge: [Where] do you work? Prospective Juror 7: Bellevue Hospital. Trial Judge: You've had dealings with the District Attorney's office I guess? Prospective Juror 7: I am sorry. Trial Judge: Have you had any dealings with the District Attorney's office? Prospective Juror 7: No, justI have a friend in the District Attorney's office. Trial Judge: Okay. Is your friend a prosecutor or. Prospective Juror 7: Prosecutor. Trial Judge: In view of any of the contacts you had with anyone related to or working for the criminal justice system, are there any opinions that you have formed or any ideas that you hold that would affect your ability to be fair in a criminal case? Prospective Juror 7: I don't know. I have a lot of trust and respect for police officers. Trial Judge: I don't think anyone quarrels with that attitude, but do you also recognize that police officers are subject to the same problems and failings that we all have? In other words, there are some good police officers, bad ones, honest ones, dishonest ones? Prospective Juror 7: I guess. Trial Judge: Could you evaluate the testimony of police officers fairly? Prospective Juror 7: I don't know, but I would guess so, but I am not positive.    Defense Counsel: [Prospective Juror 4], you said and of course we will get into what you would like to say in private, but as you know of course police officers will be testifying, if the Judge states that you are to give the same credence to police officers one way or the other as any other witness, they are not considered more or less credible, do you think you can abide by that instruction? Prospective Juror 4: Sure. Defense Counsel: [Prospective Juror 2], do you think you can abide by that instruction if the Judge told you that police officers were no more or no less credible than anybody else? Prospective Juror 2: I would try. Once again, I will probably give them the benefit of the doubt. Defense Counsel: Doesanybody else in the jury who would tend to favor the police testimony more than say a civilian's testimony? Anybody else? Prospective Juror 7: I would. Defense Counsel: You would? Prospective Juror 7: Yes. Defendants challenged Prospective Juror 7 for cause, arguing that helike Venireperson 2, who had already been excusedfavored police testimony. After the court denied the challenge for cause, defendants exercised a peremptory challenge against him. They exhausted all of their peremptory challenges before the jury was sworn, and were ultimately convicted of six counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of attempted robbery in the first degree. The Appellate Division reversed defendants' convictions and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendants' challenge for cause where the prospective juror expressed a heavy bias in favor of police testimony over layperson testimony ( People v Johnson, 255 AD2d 136). The court explained that the case law is clear that a prospective juror who expresses partiality towards the prosecution and cannot unequivocally promise to set aside this bias should be removed for cause.    The juror's responses fell short of this standard ( People v Sharper, 255 AD2d 139, 140-141). We affirm.