You are here: / / Witness’ Offering Testimony About a “Jailhouse Confession” in Unrelated Case ...
,

Witness’ Offering Testimony About a “Jailhouse Confession” in Unrelated Case May Constitute Brady Material

In affirming the defendant’s conviction, the Third Department determined a witness’ [Henry’s] agreement to testify about a “jailhouse confession” in an unrelated case may have constituted Brady material in defendant’s case because she also entered an agreement to testify about defendant’s “jailhouse confession.”  The Court determined reversal was not required because the potential Brady error was harmless under the facts:

“….[A]ssuming, without deciding, that the full terms of Henry’s cooperation agreement – including those aspects pertaining to the other matter – were Brady material subject to disclosure, reversal is not required.   Where, as here, nondisclosure follows the defense’s specific request for materials, evidence is deemed material and reversal is required only “if there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that, had that material been disclosed, the result would have been different”… . People v Johnson, 104919, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED JURISDICTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INCONVENIENT FORUM FACTORS MANDATED BY THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW; MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO FLORIDA WITH THE CHILDREN AND FATHER WAS SEEKING TELEPHONE AND ELECTRONIC CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).
THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF PAROLE (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT’S CONCLUSIONS IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MATTER REMITTED FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).
No Constitutional Issue Raised by Claim that County Is Paying Too High a “Mobility Tax” Because It Does Not Receive as Much Transit Service as Other Counties Paying the Same Amount
Court May Impliedly Vacate Note of Issue by Directing Discovery
FAILURE TO CONTEST PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING JURORS RENDERED THE ISSUE UNPRESERVED FOR APPEAL.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Carrier’s Video Surveillance of Employee Disallowed Because It Was Not Di... People’s Expert Was Not Qualified to Testify About “Reverse Extrapolation”...