Provides that instructions to the jury shall include certain defenses; provides that such instructions shall include, but not be limited to, "Do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision"; defines the term "bias".
This bill amends New York’s Criminal Procedure Law to require, upon request of a party, that trial courts give a specific jury instruction warning jurors not to let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence their decision. The proposed instruction defines “bias” to include bias against victims or witnesses based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, gender identity or gender expression, or sexual orientation.
The bill also adds legislative findings explaining that hate crimes and “panic strategies” can exploit societal bias in criminal trials. It states that defendants should not be acquitted, or convicted of a lesser included offense, through appeals to juror prejudice against protected characteristics or associations with protected groups. The measure leaves intact the existing instruction for cases involving lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect, while adding the new anti-bias instruction as a separate provision applicable in any criminal trial or proceeding.
If enacted, the bill would modify section 300.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law by creating a mandatory-on-request jury charge addressing bias in criminal trials. It would not change the substantive elements of criminal offenses or defenses, but it would affect courtroom procedure by requiring judges to give a standardized instruction aimed at reducing the influence of prejudice on verdicts. The bill would directly affect criminal defendants, prosecutors, judges, jurors, and crime victims or witnesses, especially in cases where race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, or similar characteristics may be implicated.
The bill’s stated purpose and framing suggest strong support for protecting victims and witnesses from prejudice and for preventing verdicts influenced by societal bias. The legislative findings emphasize concern about hate crimes, bias, and the use of so-called panic strategies in criminal proceedings, indicating a generally protective and anti-discrimination posture. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented opposition or recorded division in the available materials.
The main point of contention identified in the bill text is the use of “panic strategies” by defendants, which the bill characterizes as appeals to juror bias based on a victim’s protected characteristics or associations. Supporters would likely view the bill as a safeguard against discriminatory decision-making and unfair mitigation arguments, while critics could argue that the instruction may be redundant, may influence jury deliberations, or may be used to limit defense arguments in cases involving victim identity or conduct. The bill also broadens the definition of bias to include gender identity or gender expression, which may be a point of emphasis in debate, though no specific objections are recorded in the provided context.