Queens man lost right to full jury trial, top court rules

The New York Court of Appeals ruled a defendant’s egregious actions in jury tampering and manipulation were grounds to forfeit the right to a 12-person jury. File photo by UpstateNYer/Wikimedia Commons

By Noah Powelson

The Empire State’s highest court ruled there is a time when a person is not entitled to a full jury trial — when they deliberately and illegally sabotage the jury themselves.

The New York Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that Queens resident Derek Sargeant, who was found guilty of illegally possessing firearms in 2019, gave up his right to have a full jury of 12 of his peers when he confronted a juror outside the courthouse. Marking the first time the court had ever made such a ruling, the unanimous decision lays out new rules and guidelines for the rare occasions when 12 jurors are not available.

In the case of Sargeant, the Court of Appeals said the lower courts made the right decision to continue the trial with only 11 jurors, as the defendants’ actions showed calculated intent to manipulate the jury. Granting Sargeant a mistrial because his actions resulted in the trial only having 11 jurors, the court ruled, would only give the defendant what he wanted and would encourage future jury tampering.

“We hold that in these exceedingly rare circumstances where there was clear and convincing evidence that defendant engaged in egregious conduct affecting a sworn juror after the jury commenced its deliberations, requiring the discharge of that juror, defendant forfeited the right to a jury of 12 persons,” the decision reads.

According to court documents, Sargeant was first arrested in 2018 after police responded to a violent encounter he had with a 20-year-old escort, in which Sargeant apparently threatened her with a gun inside his Queens home. While executing a search warrant, police found two revolvers, brass knuckles and over 2,500 blank credit cards within Sargeant’s home.

Sargeant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon and other crimes, and a jury trial began on Jan. 15, 2019. Twelve jurors were selected, with one alternate.

The trial commenced and proceeded as expected, the only event of note being one juror had to be excused for an issue unrelated to the case. The alternate juror was brought in as a replacement, leaving no extras to fall back on.

The real problems began when the jury broke for deliberations on Jan. 23, 2019.

That same day, Sargeant told his attorney at the time he wasn’t feeling well. The next day, on Jan. 24, Sargeant’s attorney requested deliberations be suspended because his client was experiencing a severe migraine.

Supreme Court Justice Gene Lopez, who oversaw the 2019 case, granted the request and adjourned deliberations at 12:40 pm. Sargeant was instructed to go to urgent care, the jury was released and court was scheduled to resume the next day.

A little under two hours later, one juror, referred to in documents as juror number one, returned to his home at 2:35 pm.

But the juror was stopped right outside his home by a man wearing a hat, sunglasses and a gray jacket with a high collar. The man said he found the juror’s address through public records, shoved a packet of documents into the juror’s hands and said Sargeant was innocent and being extorted. The man reportedly left very quickly after this interaction.

The juror at the time said he believed at the time the man was Sargeant, but was uncertain later on.

The juror then reported the incident to the court that same day and said he could no longer be fair or impartial, fearing for his safety after Sargeant or one of his associates found his home. The juror also handed over the documents the man gave him, which included a search warrant and other trial documents handed over during discovery.

Lopez then discharged the juror, leaving the court with 11 jurors and no alternatives to rely on. Sargeant’s counsel called for a mistrial, while prosecutors moved to continue the trial with just the 11.

Lopez ultimately sided with the prosecution, saying the evidence unequivocally shows that Sargeant was either the one that confronted the juror or he had arranged for the confrontation to happen with another person. The documents the juror handed over further proved that point, Lopez said, as they were legal documents on the case that Sargeant had easy access to.

He also said that in light of what happened, Sargeant’s “migraine” was likely faked so he could catch the juror at his home, displaying clear intent to manipulate the jury.

In doing so, Lopez ruled, Sargeant had forfeited his right to a 12-person jury.

“I have no doubt that it was the defendant who confronted juror number one at his home,” Lopez said in a decision at the time. “Moreover, it is of no moment that it may have been another. If it was not the defendant, then it was another who acted at the defendant’s direction to confront juror number one at his home. The words used by the defendant were intended to improperly influence juror number one while in the midst of his deliberations.”

The trial continued with only 11 jurors, and Sargeant was eventually found guilty.

The matter was escalated to the Appellate Division, Second Department on appeal. The court reaffirmed Lopez’ ruling, before it was eventually brought to the state’s highest court.

Sargeant’s attorney, Sarah Cohen, attempted to argue on Oct. 20, 2025 before the Court of Appeals that the state constitution guarantees a 12-person jury as a right that can only be given up in court through a signed waiver and approval by the judge. In Sargeant’s case, Cohen argued, the judge could not have forfeited the right.

“If this court is going to allow for a forfeiture of this right, short of a constitutional amendment, then it needs to create a very protective rule with a very high threshold for the forfeiture of such an important right,” Cohen said during oral arguments in October.

The court ruled that, while there the right to a 12-person jury had never been forfeited due to the defendant’s actions before, other rights have been. Defendants can also forfeit their right to appear in court during trial, for example, if their conduct is disruptive during the proceedings.

By that same logic, the court ruled there is no reason the right to a 12-person jury cannot also be forfeited under similar extreme circumstances.

“We stress that our opinion is not an invitation to courts to convene trials by fewer than 12 jurors on a routine basis,” the decision reads. “Indeed, in the 342 years that the right to trial by a jury of 12 persons has been codified in New York, we know of no other cases that involve forfeiture of that right, a fact that underscores how exceedingly rare are the circumstances that justify a forfeiture.

“We conclude that only ‘egregious conduct’ toward a sworn juror can result in a forfeiture of the right to a jury of 12,” the decision continues.

Cohen did not respond to an inquiry for this story.

The Queens district attorney’s office applauded the court’s decision.

“Our system simply cannot work without jurors,” Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz told the Eagle. “This defendant tampered with the jury on his criminal trial during the most critical stage of deliberations. His conduct was egregious by every measure. We thank the court for their unanimous decision on this case of first impression.”