Opinion ID: 2014418
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prospective Juror J.C.

Text: Defendant claims that J.C. should have been excluded under CPL 270.20 (1) (c), which provides a for cause challenge when a prospective juror is related within the sixth degree by consanguinity or affinity to certain enumerated persons, including counsel for the people. We disagree. Prior to the commencement of trial, J.C.'s brother-in-law (the brother of J.C.'s wife) had been employed as a prosecutor by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office. While there, he had worked in the Homicide Bureau and had attended a single meeting regarding the investigation of defendant, which occurred prior to defendant's arrest. At no point did the brother-in-law make any court appearances in defendant's case. In fact, the brother-in-law resigned from the office and moved to Nevada shortly after defendant's arrest and months before the start of jury selection. We decline to define counsel for the people as encompassing the tangential relationship presented here.