In People v. George , Paul George was charged with "criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree" and during the jury selection process one of the jurors -- who treated many HIV patients who acquired the disease from drug use -- expressed doubts as to whether he could be impartial. (Although he claimed he could be open-minded, the juror didn't make that statement in an clear and concise way.)
So, when the New York County Supreme Court denied George's challenge to the juror's service, and was later convicted and setenced to a six-year term, George claimed reversible error and appealed.
The Appellate Division, First Department, noted that "when potential jurors reveal knowledge or opinions reflecting a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must in some form give unequivocal assurance that they can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict." Since this juror didn't state that he could be unbiased, the AD1 thought the Supreme Court should have granted George's challenge.
As a result, the conviction was reversed and the matter sent back for a new trial.
By George, he got it!
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. George