## Facts

- Alice Crimmins was tried for killing her young daughter; the prosecution’s proof was largely circumstantial.
- A neighbor, Sophie Earomirski, testified she saw Crimmins and a man outside Crimmins’s home the night before the body was found, observed the man carrying a “bundle” to a car, and heard Crimmins say, “My God, don’t do that to her.”
- A second witness, Joseph Rorech, testified that Crimmins confessed to him, stating, “Joseph, please forgive me, I killed her.”
- Medical evidence suggested the child died by strangulation within hours of her last meal; the body was discovered around 2:00 p.m. on July 14, 1965.
- Crimmins was convicted of manslaughter at her first trial.
- After the verdict, it was discovered that three jurors made an unauthorized visit to the neighborhood connected to Earomirski’s testimony, outside court supervision and the evidentiary record.
- The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial based on prejudicial juror misconduct; the prosecution appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an unauthorized, unsupervised juror visit to a location materially tied to a key eyewitness’s ability to observe events constitutes inherently prejudicial misconduct requiring a new trial without a specific showing of actual prejudice.
2. Whether the misconduct could be treated as harmless error given the prosecution’s claim that no actual influence on deliberations was proven.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting a new trial.
- The court held that the jurors’ unauthorized visit was inherently prejudicial in this case and could not be treated as harmless.
- The court emphasized that the misconduct related directly to assessing a critical witness’s capacity to observe (vantage point and surrounding conditions) and occurred outside the safeguards of the adversarial process.
- Because the misconduct was discovered only after the verdict, there was no practical opportunity for curative measures during trial.
- The prosecution failed to show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Jurors must decide the case solely on the trial record; unsupervised juror investigations introduce extraneous information not subject to cross-examination, objection, or judicial control.
- An unauthorized juror view of a location bearing directly on disputed, central evidence—especially a key witness’s observational capacity—may be inherently prejudicial and warrant reversal without requiring proof of actual influence on deliberations.
- When the evidence is not overwhelming and the misconduct concerns a core credibility question, an appellate court may not deem the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because jurors’ unsupervised visit to a location central to evaluating a key eyewitness’s testimony created an unacceptable risk that the verdict rested on information outside the record, and the prosecution did not establish harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.


People v. Crimmins, 258 N.E.2d 708 (N.Y. 1970)