Court Opinion

ID: 9464663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:39:44.071275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:45.375479
License: Public Domain

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
With deference to Judge WYZANSKI’s change of heart, I continue to find his original opinion, reported at 564 F.2d 1189, persuasive on the substitution of juror issue. I agree that the decision to remove and replace a juror unable to perform his duty is one committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. I simply believe that on the facts of this case, in which the trial judge denied strenuous efforts by the defense to develop a record, there was no basis for the exercise of the court’s discretion. I cannot agree that the unexcused and possibly easy to remedy temporary absence of a juror provides a sufficient basis for that juror to be replaced, particularly when the defendant objects in strenuous and timely fashion.
Confident that further expostulation with my distinguished brethren would yield no productive result, I merely restate my abiding belief that Judge WYZANSKI correctly expounded the law in his first opinion.