Brooklyn, NY — In an unusual turn of events at the Brooklyn Supreme Court, two alternate jurors were accidentally left behind in a separate room, resulting in an almost 12-hour confinement. The incident occurred when court officials failed to inform these alternates of their release after typical court hours.
The mishap began on April 10 when these jurors, assigned to a civil trial lasting two weeks, were seated separately from the main jury panel to observe final deliberations. Their long day started punctually and included a midday break for lunch. However, after resuming and being placed in a separate room at 3 p.m., they were inadvertently forgotten.
Later in the afternoon, at approximately 4:30 p.m., a note from the primary jurors to Judge Inga O’Neale led to the dismissal of the main jury panel. They were informed that the court would reconvene the following day. Unfortunately, this message never reached the two alternates, who remained isolated well into the night.
Court procedures typically ensure that a court officer or clerk informs alternates of their release, but this protocol was overlooked in their case. It remains unclear how the oversight was eventually noticed—whether the alternates reached out themselves or if a late-working court staffer discovered them.
Despite their unintended extended stay, both alternates returned to perform their duties the next day, maintaining professionalism despite the unusual circumstances the night before.
The error has prompted an investigation by court administrators who have acknowledged the incident. They are currently examining how the oversight occurred in an effort to prevent similar incidents in the future.
For their service, jurors—both regular and alternate—are compensated with a flat fee. According to the New York state unified court system, this fee is approximately $40 per day regardless of the hours spent, pointing to no additional compensation for the alternates’ extended hours.
This unusual occurrence highlights the potentially overlooked yet critical role alternates play in the judicial process. While they may not engage directly in deliberations unless required to replace a main juror, their presence and readiness to step in are essential, underlining the need for effective communication and diligent procedural adherence in judicial operations.
Readers should note that this article was generated automatically by AI technology. The details, facts, and circumstances mentioned may not be accurate, and readers are encouraged to request corrections, removals, or retractions by emailing [email protected] with concerns or queries.