The most striking variation between the Criminal Procedure Law and the statute it replaced,(159) however, was its elimination of the expurgatory oath.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its dicta in Culhane that the expurgatory oath was no longer a "pro forma" method by which a prospective juror might purge himself of bias and avoid dismissal for cause.
at 760 (cautioning that, although a juror can take an expurgatory oath to negate previously expressed biases, the oath must be evaluated in the context in which it was uttered in order to ensure that it is more than a "hollow incantation").
at 172-73 (reasoning that the statutory requirement that the judge be satisfied of the challenged juror's impartiality, in combination with the expurgatory oath, satisfied the defendant's right to an impartial jury).
Laws 11,33 (establishing the expurgatory oath as a means of cleansing prospective juror of their preconceived biases); see also supra notes 97-104 and accompanying text (discussing the 1872 legislation and its incorporation into the 1881 Code of Criminal Procedure).
2d at 480 (noting that additional statements by the juror, which undermine or impeach the declaration of impartiality, render the expurgatory oath ineffective).
The Code called on the trial court to review challenges by simply requiring it to be "satisfie[d]" that the juror was impartial or that the expurgatory oath purged the juror of bias to the court's satisfaction.