People v. Ryan

In People v. Ryan, 19 N.Y.2d 100 (1966), defendant challenged the constitutionality of that provision, arguing that the substitution of an alternate juror some five hours after the jury began deliberating violated his right to trial by jury. The Court of Appeals agreed, saying: We believe that the Constitution of this State, as it has been construed, prohibits the substitution of an alternate juror - in effect a 13th juror - after the jury has begun its deliberation. While it may be difficult in an individual case to evaluate the extent to which a defendant may be prejudiced by such a substitution, we believe that, once the deliberative process has begun, it should not be disturbed by the substitution of one of more jurors who have not taken part in the previous deliberation and who had '[ceased] to function as' jurors. (19 N.Y.2d at 104-105.) Ryan further rejected the People's contention that defense counsel's oral consent to the substitution in defendant's absence waived his right to trial by jury. The Court reasoned that the consent did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for waiving a trial by jury. (19 N.Y.2d at 105.) The Court of Appeals addressed the reason why there can be no juror substitution after deliberations have begun: "The reason that there is no provision for substitution after the case has been submitted to the jury is that the Advisory Committee felt that 'it is in only rare situations that the procedure could be used, and it is believed that an alternate juror who enters the jury room after deliberation has begun is not fully qualified to render an intelligent verdict, having missed part of the discussion and consideration which makes up the deliberative process.' (Second Prelim. Report of Advisory Committee on Practice and Procedure N.Y. Legis. Doc., 1958, No. 13, p. 228.)"