Whether a prospective juror who qualifies a response to a question concerning his or her ability to be fair and impartial with "I think" gives an equivocal response that is insufficient to alleviate doubts regarding his impartiality, therefore requiring the trial court to excuse the prospective juror.

No. Phrases such as "I think" or "I'll try" in response to questions concerning impartiality are not necessarily equivocal responses that would require excusal for cause where a court has serious doubts as to a prospective juror's impartiality.

Defendant's attorney questioned the impartiality of a prospective juror who stated during voir dire that he would tend to believe police testimony and felt that police were "good observers." Defendant's attorney asked whether these viewpoints would affect his ability to remain impartial and fair, and the prospective juror responded, "No, I don't think so." Defendant used a peremptory challenge to remove the prospective juror after the trial court denied Defendant's challenge to excuse the prospective juror for cause. Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that despite any possible doubts regarding impartiality, the trial court was not required to excuse for cause, because the prospective juror unequivocally stated that he could be fair and impartial. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court first reiterated the principle that "a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial." The Court then noted that the use of words such as "think" or "try" in response to questions concerning impartiality does not necessarily make for an equivocal response. See People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73 (N.Y. 1982). In this case, the Court found that based on the context of the response, the trial court correctly denied Defendant's motion for excusal, because the prospective juror's answer of "No, I don't think so" was unequivocal. The Court accordingly affirmed the Appellate Division. Finally, the Court reminded trial courts that following up this type of answer with "an additional question or two at voir dire would easily dispel any doubt as to equivocation, assure an impartial jury, and avoid the delay, and risk, of appeals."