People v. Burts

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Vilfort

    33 A.D.3d 368 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    In particular, counsel may have been influenced by these jurors' demeanor, which is not reflected in the record. On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668). Viewing the voir dire as a whole, the ambiguous comments by the two jurors did not cast serious doubt on their ability to be fair ( see People v Burts, 237 AD2d 155, lv denied 90 NY2d 856). Furthermore, in the colloquy between counsel and the court concerning these jurors, counsel stated that his client intended to testify (a prediction that proved accurate), and that counsel believed this rendered moot any concern about the jurors' comments. On this record, we find counsel's conclusion to be reasonable.

  2. People v. Leo

    249 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander Hunter, J.). The court properly denied defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror, since the totality of the juror's responses established that she could render an impartial verdict based on the evidence (see, CPL 270.20 [b]; People v. Burts, 237 A.D.2d 155, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 856). The court's inquiry of a juror and of correction officers concerning defendant's allegations of juror misconduct demonstrate that the incident complained of was trivial and innocuous and that no juror misconduct had occurred (see, People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 299; People v. Moreno, 244 A.D.2d 280; People v. Gonzalez, 232 A.D.2d 204, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 923). As a result, there was no need to call other witnesses on this issue.