People v. Derek Sargeant (decided November 20, 2025)

Issue: Can a defendant forfeit his right to a jury of 12 where he engages in misconduct leading to the disqualification of a juror during deliberations?

The Holding: Yes, if a defendant engages in egregious misconduct leading to the disqualification of a deliberating juror, a defendant can forfeit their right to a verdict from a jury consisting of 12 jurors.

CAL observes: The defendant, who was on trial for CPW2, located a sworn juror’s home address using public records, then went to the juror’s residence wearing a disguise and approached him under false pretenses, and tried to persuade the juror of his innocence. This occurred after deliberations had already begun and after alternate jurors had been released from service. The defendant created the opportunity for this contact by pretending to have a medical emergency, a deception that misled both the court and his own attorney. Once confronted, the juror informed the court that he could no longer remain impartial. The court, with agreement from both parties, discharged the juror. The defendant then moved for a mistrial, which the court denied, concluding that he had forfeited his right to a full jury of twelve. The remaining eleven jurors continued deliberating and returned a guilty verdict.

The Court of Appeals established a four-part framework for determining when forfeiture of the right to a 12-person jury is warranted. First, the prosecution must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in conduct that is not merely improper but egregious, meaning conduct that is extremely improper, flagrant, or conspicuously offensive. The conduct must be directed specifically at a sworn juror. Second, the timing of the misconduct matters: if a defendant acts after alternates have been dismissed and deliberations are underway, the defendant prevents the court from substituting an alternate. Third, the defendant’s misconduct must necessitate the juror’s discharge; if the juror remained able to be fair and impartial, no forfeiture would occur. Fourth, forfeiture is appropriate only when no alternate jurors remain available to restore a lawful 12-person panel.

Applying this standard, the Court found that the defendant’s behavior was deliberate, calculated, and executed over several days. It constituted a sustained and intentional attempt to influence or unsettle a sworn juror, undermining the integrity of the deliberative process. The Court therefore agreed that forfeiture was justified.

Rejection of the “right-to-counsel” analogy

The Court declined to adopt the approach suggested by the Appellate Division dissenter, who argued that forfeiture should mirror the doctrine applied to the right to counsel. Under that doctrine, a defendant forfeits counsel only after persistent, egregious misconduct toward multiple attorneys; a single episode is not enough. The Court rejected this analogy, explaining that interference with a deliberating jury poses a different and more acute threat to the fairness of the proceedings, and that a narrower rule would inadequately protect the integrity of the deliberation process.

Open Question Left Unresolved

The Court also declined to answer a question raised during oral argument: whether there are limits on how many jurors a defendant can “forfeit.” Counsel asked whether a verdict by six jurors would be valid if a defendant’s misconduct resulted in the discharge of six jurors, or whether even more extreme scenarios—such as only two jurors remaining—would be permissible. The Court left these hypothetical boundaries for another day.