People,(105) the New York Court of Appeals held that this statutory scheme was constitutional, reasoning that the expurgatory oath sufficiently satisfied the defendant's right to an impartial jury.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted first that the jury selection reform of 1872,(111) as embodied in the Code of Criminal Procedure,(112) gave the trial court the discretion to seat a juror notwithstanding his expressed opinion of guilt once he took the expurgatory oath.
Subsequent decisions also evinced a willingness to look beyond the fact that a prospective juror had uttered an expurgatory oath.
130) Although the language of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed the use of the expurgatory oath only to purge biases as to guilt or innocence,(131) the New York Court of Appeals permitted other forms of bias to be purged by the oath.
In essence, a juror who expressed any bias that might affect his verdict, whether or not directly touching on guilt or innocence, was required to swear both parts of the expurgatory oath to avoid disqualification.
Grendler, "Gasparo Contarini and the University of Padua"; Marion Leathers Kuntz, "Venice and Justice: Saint Mark and Moses"; Silvana Seidel Menchi, "The Inquisitor as Mediator"; Gigliola Fragnito, "The Expurgatory
Policy of the Church and the Works of Gasparo Contarini"; Elena Bonora, "The Heresy of a Venetian Prelate: Archbishop Filippo Mocenigo"; Anne Jacobson Schutte, "Legal Remedies for Forced Monachization in Early Modern Italy"; and John W.