Opinion
January 16, 1996
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant stated at the Huntley hearing that his statements to the police were the product of coercion and that he was not advised of his Miranda rights. His testimony, however, was contradicted by that of the investigating detectives. The two distinctly different versions of the events surrounding the defendant's statements created an issue of credibility for the hearing court, whose findings we will not disturb unless they are clearly unsupported by the record ( see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Washington, 182 A.D.2d 791; People v Gonzalez, 179 A.D.2d 775). The hearing record indicates that the defendant effectively waived his rights and voluntarily gave the statements at issue. The defendant's claim of coercion was weakened by his own contradictory statements, by photographs, and by his failure to complain to the authorities ( see, People v Diaz, 177 A.D.2d 500, 503). His claim that he had never seen a rights waiver form was contradicted by the prior waiver forms that were executed by him on several of his previous convictions.
The defendant erroneously contends that he was prejudiced by the possibility that the jurors could have read a newspaper article about his case which was published during the trial. A sworn juror cannot be discharged based on speculation. Rather, the court must be convinced, after a probing and tactful inquiry, that the juror would be unable to deliberate fairly and render an impartial verdict ( see, People v Cargill, 70 N.Y.2d 687, 689). The court's conclusion that none of the five jurors who were exposed to the newspaper article read it was supported by the inquiry and we accord the court's finding great deference ( see, People v Bamfield, 208 A.D.2d 853).
The defendant's remaining contentions are meritless. Bracken, J.P., Altman, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.