After four and a half hours, a Kings County Supreme Court jury found Everton Simms guilty of two counts of first-degree robbery. When the jurors were later polled, "Juror 10" advised the court that, although she felt pressured, she voted to find Simms guilty.
When Simms later moved to set aside the outcome, a Kings County Criminal Court judge --believing that he lacked the authority to grant the requested relief -- denied the request. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and ordered a new trial.
When the case reached our state's highest court, it cited to ยง310.80 of the State's Criminal Procedure Law, which provides that if a juror declines to accept a verdict, deliberations must resume.
The New York State Court of Appeals (COA) was of the view the trial judge was obligated to resolve any uncertainties that existed, particularly if any purported "duress" occurred during the group's discussions.
Since the ambiguity which arose in this case hadn't been appropriately addressed, the COA concluded that a new trial was warranted.
Talk about peer pressure!
To view a copy of the Court of Appeals' decision, please use this link: People v. Simms