An East Harlem man convicted of murdering his girlfriend will get a new trial because a juror never revealed that she was applying to become a prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney's office handling the case.

A unanimous Appellate Division, First Department, panel threw out Equan Southall's second-degree murder conviction and accompanying prison sentence of 23 years to life, writing in a lengthy opinion issued Tuesday that “the juror's assertions of impartiality are irrelevant to our analysis, as her implied bias is incurable.”

“Her knowledge that she was seeking a job at the DA's Office, as well as her experience of crafting her argument in her cover letter to the DA's Office that she would be an excellent prosecutor there, created a relationship between her and the DA's office, which raised a high likelihood that she would be inclined to favor the People, and which was likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial verdict,” wrote Justice Peter Tom for the panel.

“Indeed, '[n]othing is more basic to the criminal process than the right of an accused to a trial by an impartial jury,'” Tom also wrote in the opinion, quoting People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 652 (1979).

The juror, who was not named in the decision, was an attorney handling corporate litigation, white-collar defense and securities matters at a large law firm when she was given voir dire before trial, according to Tom.

After being selected for the jury, but two days before the trial opened, she spent several hours applying online to become an assistant district attorney in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. According to her later testimony in a hearing on Southall's motion to vacate the verdict, she had been “inspired” by “going through” voir dire to consider applying to Vance's office.

Meanwhile, two assistant DAs from Vance's office, including Craig Ortner, prepared to try Southall.

The juror, who before entering law school in 2009 worked as a paralegal specialist for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office, ultimately got the job and began working under Vance in September 2014.

According to a spokeswoman for Vance's office, the juror and now prosecutor is Samantha Dworken, an ADA in the Trial Division of Vance's office.

Throughout Southall's trial, which ended on April 29, 2014, Dworken never disclosed that she was pursuing the ADA position. Eight months later, Ortner sent a letter to the trial judge, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Daniel Conviser, informing him that “one of the jurors who convicted the defendant had been hired by the DA's Office as an ADA,” Tom wrote.

Later in 2015, Southall, represented by Center for Appellate Litigation attorney John Vang, lodged a CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment against him. He argued that he had suffered prejudice based on Dworken's failure to inform the court of her pending job application.

In 2016, at a 440 hearing on the motion, Dworken explained her decision to not inform any attorneys working the case or the judge about her ADA application. She contended that she was in compliance with various instructions to the jury about impartiality, Tom wrote.

“The juror explained that she had interpreted the trial court's instruction not to communicate with attorneys in the case to refer to the individual prosecutors handling the case, not to the DA's Office as a whole,” Tom explained.

He added that Dworken also testified that “my understanding of the [v]oir [d]ire questions that I had been asked didn't include whether I had hoped, intended, or had any applications for any jobs in particular.”

In addition, Dworken said that she never “intentionally fail[ed] to disclose information that [she] believed to be relevant to [her] qualifications to serve as a juror” during jury selection, Tom wrote. Moreover, she denied that she thought about her job application or prospective employment with the DA's Office during jury deliberations. She also maintained that her application did not influence her conduct as a juror, including in how she reached a verdict.

Still, Dworken also admitted that she “play[ed] an active role in discussing the case with other jurors,” according to Tom's recounting of her testimony.

On Tuesday, Tom and the other First Department panel members, which included Justices Angela Mazzarelli, Richard Andrias, Jeffrey Oing and Anil Singh, ruled that Southall's constitutional right to a fair trial before an impartial jury had been violated. The decision reversed Conviser's 2016 decision to deny Southall's motion to vacate the judgment. The panel found that Conviser had abused his discretion in reaching the decision.

“While we recognize that there is no rule requiring automatic reversal in these situations, since the verdict was not returned by a fair and impartial jury and we find the juror would have been subject to removal for cause [by Southall's trial attorney, Patrick Brackley], we agree with defendant that he was denied a fair trial on the ground that he was not tried by a jury of his own choice,” Tom wrote.

He added, “The motion court employed a too narrow approach to determining whether the juror exhibited actual bias. Notably, CPL 270.20(1)(b) requires merely proof of a 'state of mind that is likely to preclude a juror from rendering an impartial verdict.' Thus, actual bias 'is not limited … to situations where a prospective juror has formed an opinion as to the defendant's guilt,'” quoting People v. Torpey, 63 N.Y.2d 361, 366 (1984).

Emily Tuttle, a spokeswoman for Vance's office, said in a statement Tuesday that the office is “reviewing the [panel's] decision in consideration of seeking leave to appeal.” Tuttle otherwise declined to comment, not answering additional inquiries including whether Dworken would any face disciplinary action from Vance's office.

The People were represented in the appeal by Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys Ross Mazer and Hilary Hassler.

Vang, the Center for Appellate Litigation attorney, said that he was happy with the panel's ruling in People v. Southall, 4123/11. He declined further comment.

Southall was convicted of the 2011 strangling and stabbing of girlfriend Camila Guzman. He had  confessed to the killing of Guzman, but his trial lawyers said he had suffered from an extreme emotional disturbance and, consequently, he should be convicted of only first-degree manslaughter, not second-degree murder. The “central issue” at trial was whether he suffered from such an emotional disturbance and should therefore get the reduction, wrote Tom. The jury, including Dworken, said no.

Peter Tom

An East Harlem man convicted of murdering his girlfriend will get a new trial because a juror never revealed that she was applying to become a prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney's office handling the case.

A unanimous Appellate Division, First Department, panel threw out Equan Southall's second-degree murder conviction and accompanying prison sentence of 23 years to life, writing in a lengthy opinion issued Tuesday that “the juror's assertions of impartiality are irrelevant to our analysis, as her implied bias is incurable.”

“Her knowledge that she was seeking a job at the DA's Office, as well as her experience of crafting her argument in her cover letter to the DA's Office that she would be an excellent prosecutor there, created a relationship between her and the DA's office, which raised a high likelihood that she would be inclined to favor the People, and which was likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial verdict,” wrote Justice Peter Tom for the panel.

“Indeed, '[n]othing is more basic to the criminal process than the right of an accused to a trial by an impartial jury,'” Tom also wrote in the opinion, quoting People v. Branch , 46 N.Y.2d 645, 652 (1979).

The juror, who was not named in the decision, was an attorney handling corporate litigation, white-collar defense and securities matters at a large law firm when she was given voir dire before trial, according to Tom.

After being selected for the jury, but two days before the trial opened, she spent several hours applying online to become an assistant district attorney in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. According to her later testimony in a hearing on Southall's motion to vacate the verdict, she had been “inspired” by “going through” voir dire to consider applying to Vance's office.

Meanwhile, two assistant DAs from Vance's office, including Craig Ortner, prepared to try Southall.

The juror, who before entering law school in 2009 worked as a paralegal specialist for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office, ultimately got the job and began working under Vance in September 2014.

According to a spokeswoman for Vance's office, the juror and now prosecutor is Samantha Dworken, an ADA in the Trial Division of Vance's office.

Throughout Southall's trial, which ended on April 29, 2014, Dworken never disclosed that she was pursuing the ADA position. Eight months later, Ortner sent a letter to the trial judge, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Daniel Conviser, informing him that “one of the jurors who convicted the defendant had been hired by the DA's Office as an ADA,” Tom wrote.

Later in 2015, Southall, represented by Center for Appellate Litigation attorney John Vang, lodged a CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment against him. He argued that he had suffered prejudice based on Dworken's failure to inform the court of her pending job application.

In 2016, at a 440 hearing on the motion, Dworken explained her decision to not inform any attorneys working the case or the judge about her ADA application. She contended that she was in compliance with various instructions to the jury about impartiality, Tom wrote.

“The juror explained that she had interpreted the trial court's instruction not to communicate with attorneys in the case to refer to the individual prosecutors handling the case, not to the DA's Office as a whole,” Tom explained.

He added that Dworken also testified that “my understanding of the [v]oir [d]ire questions that I had been asked didn't include whether I had hoped, intended, or had any applications for any jobs in particular.”

In addition, Dworken said that she never “intentionally fail[ed] to disclose information that [she] believed to be relevant to [her] qualifications to serve as a juror” during jury selection, Tom wrote. Moreover, she denied that she thought about her job application or prospective employment with the DA's Office during jury deliberations. She also maintained that her application did not influence her conduct as a juror, including in how she reached a verdict.

Still, Dworken also admitted that she “play[ed] an active role in discussing the case with other jurors,” according to Tom's recounting of her testimony.

On Tuesday, Tom and the other First Department panel members, which included Justices Angela Mazzarelli, Richard Andrias, Jeffrey Oing and Anil Singh, ruled that Southall's constitutional right to a fair trial before an impartial jury had been violated. The decision reversed Conviser's 2016 decision to deny Southall's motion to vacate the judgment. The panel found that Conviser had abused his discretion in reaching the decision.

“While we recognize that there is no rule requiring automatic reversal in these situations, since the verdict was not returned by a fair and impartial jury and we find the juror would have been subject to removal for cause [by Southall's trial attorney, Patrick Brackley], we agree with defendant that he was denied a fair trial on the ground that he was not tried by a jury of his own choice,” Tom wrote.

He added, “The motion court employed a too narrow approach to determining whether the juror exhibited actual bias. Notably, CPL 270.20(1)(b) requires merely proof of a 'state of mind that is likely to preclude a juror from rendering an impartial verdict.' Thus, actual bias 'is not limited … to situations where a prospective juror has formed an opinion as to the defendant's guilt,'” quoting People v. Torpey , 63 N.Y.2d 361, 366 (1984).

Emily Tuttle, a spokeswoman for Vance's office, said in a statement Tuesday that the office is “reviewing the [panel's] decision in consideration of seeking leave to appeal.” Tuttle otherwise declined to comment, not answering additional inquiries including whether Dworken would any face disciplinary action from Vance's office.

The People were represented in the appeal by Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys Ross Mazer and Hilary Hassler.

Vang, the Center for Appellate Litigation attorney, said that he was happy with the panel's ruling in People v. Southall, 4123/11. He declined further comment.

Southall was convicted of the 2011 strangling and stabbing of girlfriend Camila Guzman. He had  confessed to the killing of Guzman, but his trial lawyers said he had suffered from an extreme emotional disturbance and, consequently, he should be convicted of only first-degree manslaughter, not second-degree murder. The “central issue” at trial was whether he suffered from such an emotional disturbance and should therefore get the reduction, wrote Tom. The jury, including Dworken, said no.