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 the New York Criminal Procedure Law to require a standard jury instruction, when requested by a party in any criminal trial or proceeding, telling jurors: “Do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision.” It also defines “bias” for purposes of the instruction 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’s findings explain that New York has a strong public policy against bias in criminal proceedings and specifically express concern about so-called “panic strategies” in which defendants attempt to exploit juror prejudice tied to a victim’s protected characteristics or associations. The measure is framed as a response to the risk that juries may be influenced by societal bias and that defendants could seek acquittals or lesser convictions by appealing to that bias.
If enacted, the bill would add a new mandatory jury-charge provision to criminal trials and proceedings in New York when requested by a party, expanding the court’s required instructions beyond the existing mental-disease-or-defect charge. It would not create a new crime or defense, but it would change courtroom procedure by requiring judges to give an anti-bias instruction and by codifying a broad definition of bias that includes gender identity and gender expression. The practical effect would be to strengthen protections for victims and witnesses in criminal cases and to limit the use of arguments that rely on prejudice or public opinion.
The bill appears to be generally supportive of anti-bias protections in criminal trials, with its text strongly emphasizing fairness, equal protection, and the need to prevent prejudice from affecting verdicts. The available record does not include committee debate or votes, so there is no documented opposition or support from legislators in the provided materials. Based on the bill language alone, the measure is presented as a corrective to discriminatory trial tactics and as consistent with existing public policy against bias.
The main point of contention identified in the bill itself is the use of “panic strategies” and whether juries may be influenced by appeals to bias involving a victim’s protected characteristics. Supporters of the bill would likely view the instruction as a necessary safeguard against prejudice, while critics might argue that the language is too broad, could affect trial strategy, or may be unnecessary in light of existing judicial instructions on impartiality. The bill also explicitly includes gender identity and gender expression in the definition of bias, which could be a focal point in broader policy debates even though no specific opposition is shown in the provided record.