In People v. Gonzales , Luis Gonzalez appealed from his conviction of "assault in the first degree" on the grounds that a juror had made an unauthorized visit to the crime scene.
Gonzales' showdown initiated in the building's basement and then continued onto the street. Gonzales moved to set aside the verdict when he later discovered that one of his jurors had reportedly visited the exterior area of the crime scene, during the course of the trial, without the court's permission.
Since the charges were distinct and Gonzales had been acquitted of any wrongdoing related to that exterior area, the Bronx County Supreme Court concluded that the juror's visit had no prejudicial effect on the outcome.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, agreed noting that, if anything, "the juror's observations inured to [Gonzales'] benefit by contributing to his acquittal of the charges relating to the outdoor incident."
Why wasn't an example made of this meddling juror?
In addition to exposing himself to the possibility of bodily injury or harm, the juror could have sabotaged the outcome of the prosecution.
We're of the opinion that the AD1 needed to send a clearer message: Overly inquisitive jurors -- like the one in this case -- should stay home, under covers.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Gonzales