During the course of the jury selection process in the New York County Supreme Court, a prospective juror was questioned about an assault that had been committed on her some 20 years prior. When asked whether she would "tend more favorably" to believe the victim of a crime, the juror responded that the could not be certain until she had heard the tesimony. When asked if she could give any assurance that her opinions or experiences wouldn't affect her deliberations, the juror responded in the negative.
For undisclosed reasons, defense counsel's attempt to inquire whether the juror could "unequivally set aside her bias," was rebuffed by the presiding judge and a request for that juror's disqualification was also denied.
After O'Toole was convicted and sentenced to a term of 14 years, he appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which ordered a new trial.
The AD1 was of the opinion that the judge's refusal to grant the challenge to the juror's service, or to allow further inquiry as to her "bias," was a prejudicial error that warranted a redo.
How's that for a handy trial tool?
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. O'Toole