After he was convicted of burglary in the second degree, Vincent Rose challenged the jury selection process.
Apparently, when a prospective juror was asked if he had ever been the victim of a crime, the man indicated he had once found his house burglarized and his mother and a neighbor bound and gagged. When asked if he could be fair and impartial despite that experience, the juror replied, "I can try. I really don't know."
Satisfied with that response, the Westchester County Court denied Rose's challenge to that individual's service on the jury.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed Rose's conviction and ordered a new trial.
In the AD2's view, the juror needed to exhibit an "absolute belief" that he could be fair and impartial. Failing that, the individual should have been removed, particularly since his response had been so equivocal.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Rose