Opinion ID: 783828
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Anderson's Trial.

Text: 2 Henry Anderson was convicted on March 13, 1996, after a jury trial in New York Supreme Court for the County of Kings, Justice Norman George presiding. Specifically, Anderson was convicted of: (1) one count of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 220.39[1] (the first count); (2) one count of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 220.16[1] (the second count); and (3) one count of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 220.03 (the third count). The court dismissed Anderson's conviction on the third court as a lesser inclusory count. 3 This was Anderson's second trial arising from charges that he and an accomplice sold heroin to an undercover police officer in Brooklyn, New York on May 7, 1995. The first trial resulted in a hung jury after four days of deliberation. 4 The conduct of the jury in the second trial was, to say the least, atypical. A verdict was finally accepted by the court after three days of deliberations. On the second day of deliberations, one juror, Juror No. 5, was excused after she sent a note to Justice George, which the judge read into the record as follows: 5 THE COURT: Counsel, with regard to the latest note from the jury, which has been shared with counsel and marked Court Exhibit number 10 and which states, Given the fact that I am only one juror, at this point I am being treated as a prisoner. I have served my duty and need to return to my three children (one five months old with a flu). We are and will be in a deadlocked position indefinitely, underscore. I need not want to leave to care for my children and will never try to be a juror again in life, because my rights as a citizen do not matter in the spite of the law. Trial Transcript at 1019. 1 6 Juror No. 5 was excused with the consent of the parties and Justice George then directed the jury to begin deliberations anew with an alternate juror. 7 On the morning of the third day of deliberations, the jury returned with a verdict convicting Anderson on the first and second counts, but acquitting him on the third count. Shortly before rendering this verdict, the jury had requested, and received from Justice George, an explanation of the elements of conviction under the third count. Trial Transcript at 1040-42. 8 During polling of the jury, the following colloquy took place between Juror No. 11 and the court: 9 THE CLERK: Juror number 11, is that your verdict? You must answer so the court reporter can take down your answer, ma'am. I'll repeat it. Juror number 11, is that your verdict? 10 THE COURT: Juror number 11, is that your verdict, yes or no? You must answer. Is that your verdict? 11 JUROR No. 11: I don't know. 12 THE COURT: Yes or no? 13 JUROR No. 11: I don't know. 14 THE COURT: You don't know? You don't know if that is your verdict? 15 JUROR No. 11: I don't know. 16 THE COURT: You don't know. All right, we'll send the jury back to resume your deliberations. 17 Trial Transcript at 1046. 18 After the jury exited, Justice George denied defense counsel's motion for a mistrial. Trial Transcript at 1047-48. After a recess, and in response to another motion by defense counsel, Justice George announced that, should the jury return with the same verdict the Court will rule that such a verdict is repugnant and the Court will, without necessity of counsel having to make the argument outside the presence of the jury, take the appropriate action to send the jury back to reconsidering Counts # 2 and # 3 and to render an appropriate, consistent non-repugnant verdict. Trial Transcript at 1053. 19 Shortly thereafter, the jury in fact returned with the same verdict, and was polled without incident. But Justice George immediately rejected the verdict, explaining to the jury that it could not convict on the second count, which requires possession with intent to sell, and acquit on the third count, which requires only possession. Justice George then directed the jury to continue its deliberations. Trial Transcript at 1058-62. 20 The jury once again returned shortly, and announced a verdict convicting Anderson on all three counts. The jury was polled, unanimously endorsed the verdict, and was released. But defense counsel urged the court not to accept the verdict: 21 MR. MULLADY: Your Honor I object to the verdict. Jurors # 2 and # 11 hesitated and cried. 22 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. 23 MR. MULLADY: I object to the taking, the Court's taking of the verdict. Jurors # 2 and # 11 were crying and hesitant in their answers, and number two was barely audible to me. I object to the taking of the verdict. 24 THE COURT: You object because the jurors were crying? 25 MR. MULLADY: Hesitant. 26 THE COURT: hesitant. 27 MR. MULLADY: hesitant. 28 THE COURT: And crying? 29 MR. MULLADY: Yes. 30 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anything else? 31 Trial Transcript at 1069-70.