People v. Reed

1 Citing case

  1. People v. Robinson

    239 A.D.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 8 times

    The record establishes, and the People do not dispute, that defendant was absent from these two sidebars. Thus, a CPL 260.20 violation occurred ( People v. Reed, 237 A.D.2d 182). However, the People argue that reversal is not required because it can be inferred from the substance of the pre-sidebar discussion that the first juror's excusal "on consent" must have been for cause, and therefore defendant's presence would not have afforded him any meaningful opportunity to affect the outcome of this legal determination ( People v. Maher, supra, at 325; People v. Roman, supra, at 28).