Provides that after an alternate juror has been substituted, the jury shall deliberate anew on all issues submitted to the jury at the outset of deliberations; exempts issues for which a verdict was already rendered.
Summary
A08695 amends New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules section 4106 governing alternate jurors. Under current law, alternate jurors may replace a regular juror who dies, becomes ill, or is otherwise unable to serve, and the court may allow an alternate to participate in deliberations if substitution occurs after deliberations begin. This bill adds a new rule for what happens after substitution: once an alternate juror is seated, the jury must deliberate anew on all issues that were originally submitted to the jury at the start of deliberations.
The bill also addresses cases where the jury has already reached a verdict on some issues before an alternate is substituted. In that situation, the jury would deliberate anew only on the issues that were not already decided by the rendered verdict. The measure applies immediately and to all pending actions and proceedings on or after its effective date, making it a procedural change for ongoing and future civil cases.
Impact
The bill would modify civil trial procedure in New York by clarifying the duties of a jury after an alternate juror replaces a regular juror during deliberations. It affects courts, litigants, jurors, and trial judges by requiring renewed deliberations to preserve the integrity of the verdict process when the composition of the jury changes. The amendment would apply to all pending and future actions and proceedings, so it could affect cases already underway when the law takes effect.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong support for the bill. It passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee unanimously, 21-0, and later passed the Assembly floor unanimously, 132-0. No committee transcript objections are provided, and the recorded votes suggest broad agreement that the bill is a procedural clarification rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record. The main legal issue addressed by the bill is how to handle jury deliberations after an alternate juror is substituted, especially in cases where deliberations have already begun or partial verdicts have been reached. Any potential contention would likely center on whether requiring the jury to deliberate anew could add time or complexity to trials, but the unanimous committee and floor votes indicate that such concerns did not generate visible resistance in the Assembly.
Same As
Provides that after an alternate juror has been substituted, the jury shall deliberate anew on all issues submitted to the jury at the outset of deliberations; exempts issues for which a verdict was already rendered.
Same As
Provides that after an alternate juror has been substituted, the jury shall deliberate anew on all issues submitted to the jury at the outset of deliberations; exempts issues for which a verdict was already rendered.
Provides that after an alternate juror has been substituted, the jury shall deliberate anew on all issues submitted to the jury at the outset of deliberations; exempts issues for which a verdict was already rendered.
Provides that after an alternate juror has been substituted, the jury shall deliberate anew on all issues submitted to the jury at the outset of deliberations; exempts issues for which a verdict was already rendered.
Juries; special venire in capital felony cases allowed, voire dire procedures and alternate juror procedures further provided for, procedures when there are not enough qualified jurors present established
Relating to the practice and procedures for summoning prospective grand jurors and petit jurors and the exemption of certain persons from grand jury and petit jury service.
Relating to the practice and procedures for summoning prospective grand jurors and petit jurors and the exemption of certain persons from grand jury and petit jury service.