A Queens robbery suspect had his conviction tossed on appeal because one of the jurors was nodding off during his trial — and the judge let the panelist stay over the objection of the defense lawyer.
Juror No. 2 was apparently sleeping or struggling to stay awake during Stanley Mentor’s 2019 trial, and Queens Supreme Court Judge Ronald Hollie refused to boot him or let the defense counsel ask him any questions.
The trial ended with Mentor’s conviction on robbery, weapon possession and stolen property charges. Hollie sentenced him to seven years behind bars.
It’s the latest reversal for Hollie, who had a history of playing prosecutor from the bench and questioning witnesses himself.
Hollie, who retired in 2020, died in November.
A Feb. 8 decision by the Appellate Division Second Department laid out the conduct that led to the conviction being overturned.
On day two of his trial, during the cross-examination of the arresting officer, Mentor noticed the juror had his head down, with his eyes closed, and that two other panelists elbowed him to rouse him.
The defense attorney asked Hollie to question the juror about whether he was snoozing, so the judge told him his service required “not sleep[ing] during the trial,” according to the appeal decision.
“I’m trying my best,” the juror replied, and when the judge followed up and asked if he’d heard everything, he responded, “I believe so.”
“You’re not quite sure?” Hollie asked, and the man responded, “Yes.”
The juror later said he was “reasonably confident” he didn’t miss anything, and though the defense asked the judge to remove the man, he refused.
About two weeks later, the defense attorney noticed the same juror struggling to stay awake during closing arguments, with his “head fully back, eyes closed, mouth dropped,” while the jury was being instructed, according to the appeals decision. The juror “jolt[ed] [his] head back up.”
The man explained that he had heard everything “more or less,” but when the defense wanted to ask the juror a follow-up question, Hollie refused.
The three-judge appellate panel said Hollie should have pressed further during the three times he questioned the juror — he never asked if the man dozed off or felt sleepy and never asked about what he meant when he said he “more or less” understood the jury instructions.
“Since the court (Hollie) failed to ask during the third inquiry whether juror number two had fallen asleep during the jury charge, whether he had difficulty staying awake, or about any of defense counsel’s specific observations, its determination that juror number two was not grossly unqualified to serve was based on speculation,” the appellate panel ruled.
Hollie was cited at least eight times for prejudicial conduct in the courtroom. In 2021, the appellate division ordered a new trial for a stabbing suspect, finding that Hollie “engaged in extensive questioning of witnesses, usurped the role of attorneys and generally created the impression that [the court] was an advocate for the people.”
Mentor’s appellate division lawyer, Sean Murray, declined comment on the case, and Meris Campbell, a spokeswoman for Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz declined to specify how prosecutors would proceed.
“The appellate court decision is under review,” Campbell said.