Relates to alternate jurors

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Luis R. Sepúlveda says this is needed

This measure would amend CPLR 4106 in relation to the use of alternate jurors. Selection of one or more alternate jurors at the request of a party and with the consent of the court is authorized by CPLR 4106. This provides an invaluable mechanism for continuing a trial and avoiding declaration of a mistrial when, during the trial, a juror is unable to continue to serve because of some physical or mental disability or evinces a bias or prejudice against one of the parties. In 2013 (effective January 1, 2014), upon recommendation of the Advisory Committee, CPLR 4106 was revised to permit a court, without first secur- ing the permission of the parties, to seat an alternate juror after a case has been submitted to the jury and deliberations have begun, and to permit that juror to participate in deliberations if a regular juror has become unable to perform the duties of a juror. However, when an alter- nate is seated during deliberations, CPLR 4106 is silent as to whether the jury shall then continue to deliberate from the point where the alternate is seated, or must start deliberations over, from the begin- ning, even reconsidering issues that had been resolved by the original jurors. This measure would amend CNA 4106 to provide a direction that when an alternate juror is seated after deliberations have begun, the reconsti- tuted jury shall begin deliberations over again on all issues that were presented to the jury when the case was submitted to them. No appellate courts have addressed this matter in New York. In Gallegos v. Elite Model Management Corporation, 28 A.D.3d 50 (1St Dep't, 2005), during deliberations in the damages trial of a bifurcated case, the trial judge seated two alternate jurors with this instruction to the newly constituted jury: "You are going to start deliberations from scratch... it is as if you were starting from the very beginning." On appeal, however, the damages verdict was reversed because, absent consent by defense counsel, the substitution of alternate jurors was improper. We believe that when an alternate juror has been seated during deliber- ations, the court should instruct the newly constituted jury that it must start over and deliberate on all of the issues that were submitted to it when the deliberations began. Even though this procedure may prolong the length of deliberations, its virtues are several: the original jurors will now have the benefit of input from the newly substituted juror on all issues; the substituted juror will hear the positions previously advanced by those jurors. Those positions may now change. After a verdict is announced and a request is made to poll the jury, all six members of the reconstituted jury will be able to honestly state that it was, or was not, their verdict. The parties will have the assurance that all six jurors in the jury box, including the substituted juror, participated in the deliberations leading to the verdict. We recognize that where trial has been bifurcated and a verdict has already been recorded in the liability phase, when an alternate is seat- ed in the damages phase, the newly constituted jury should be instructed to begin again only with regard to the issues raised in the damages phase. We also recommend that the Pattern Jury Instruction Committee consider an amendment to P31 1.13A to reflect these proposals. This measure would take effect immediately and apply to all actions pending on or after such effective date.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.