September 6, 2008
The move to sequester: Is judge coercing jury?
A judge's unusual decision to sequester the jury in the Martin Heidgen trial may push them - perhaps improperly - to a verdict, according to attorneys.
Under the supervision of armed court officers, the jurors headed to a hotel last night after Acting State Supreme Court Justice Alan Honorof said they would be sequestered for the rest of their deliberations.
Barring some undisclosed reason for the move, the judge did not give the typical explanation for sequestering the jurors at this point because they had already been exposed to the risk of being tainted by the extensive media coverage of the case, the attorneys said. Imposing sequestration in the middle of deliberations is rare, they said.
"The only basis for sequestration is that you might have the jury exposed to publicity or outside influence," said attorney Robert Gottlieb of Commack. "It appears that the basis for this sequestration - unless something else was revealed to the judge - would be to put pressure on them to reach a verdict."
"That would not be permissible. That would raise a very, very serious issue on appeal," said Gottlieb, one of the few attorneys in New York State who has written on the arcane issue of sequestration.
Attorney Paul Gianelli of Hauppauge offered a similar assessment, with the caveat that the judge might know something about the jury that has not yet been made public.
"To sequester because they were unable to reach a verdict seems coercive and punitive," Gianelli said.
Typically, court officers monitor reading material of sequestered jurors and bar them from watching television. The jurors share communal meals, have private hotel rooms and are driven to and from court by the officers.
A spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration said the agency did not maintain statistics on how many juries were sequestered and had no formal guidelines for judges on when to sequester.
"It is a tool that judges have available when they deem it appropriate. It is certainly more rare, but it is not unheard of," spokesman David Bookstaver said.
The National Center for State Courts said yesterday it knew of no research on whether sequestering increased the chances of a verdict.
Staff writer Sandra Peddie contributed to this story.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
Popular stories
- Crude falls as gas hits a record
- Tribe set for football opener
- Hanna brings wind and rain, but what’s next may be worse
- Homecoming king
- Retail stocks may not be best fit for investors
- Palin & Hillary are opposites
- Retirement in Williamsburg
- Foreign students often exploited
- Swimmer Ryan Lochte sets sights on beating friend and rival, Michael Phelps
- Jim Brown
- Government
- Michael K Powell
