¶1Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was pre*734seated and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant Pollock contended that the order of the court impanelling a special jury violated his right to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of his peers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Appeals held that the order impanelling a special jury did not violate his right under the Fourteenth Amendment. [See 6 N Y 2d 890.]
7 N.Y.2d 733
People v. Pollock
Decided October 14, 1959
New York Court of Appeals · decided 1959-10-14
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1960
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant Pollock contended that the order of the Court impaneling a special jury violated his right to a fair and impartial trial by a jury of his peers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Appeals held that the order impaneling a special jury did not violate his right under the Fourteenth Amendment”. People v. Pollock, 7 N.Y.2d 733 , 193 N.Y.S.2d 633 , 162 N..E.2d 724.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including United States ex rel. Pollock v. Denno
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1959-10-14
View the full empirical analysis of this case →