You are here: / / Exclusion of Defense Counsel’s Colleague from a Wade Hearing Deprived D...
,

Exclusion of Defense Counsel’s Colleague from a Wade Hearing Deprived Defendant of His Right to a Public Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, reversed a conviction finding the defendant was denied his right to a public trial. To protect the undercover officer and others, the defendant was excluded from the Wade hearing concerning the validity of the undercover officer’s identification of the defendant.  The trial court, in ordering partial closure of the courtroom, had allowed defense counsel, and colleagues of defense counsel, to be present during the hearing. During the hearing, defense counsel’s officemate was denied entry to the courtroom by the court officer stationed at the door, who had consulted with the sergeant inside the courtroom.  The First Department determined the exclusion of the defendant from the hearing was proper, but the exclusion of the attorney required reversal.  The court wrote:

Here, the undercover was the critical witness, and excluding defense counsel’s colleague from the courtroom during this time was not inconsequential. Furthermore, defense counsel explained that the excluded attorney was his officemate, with whom he had consulted about the case. The court also acknowledged that the excluded attorney had substantial experience in criminal defense cases. Although there would have been a problem even if the attorney had no such experience or connection to the case, the exclusion here was particularly troubling because defense counsel alerted the court that his colleagues might be coming, and the excluded attorney could have been of assistance to defense counsel during this critical phase of the trial … .  *  *  *

…[T]he exclusion of defense counsel’s colleague interfered with the very purpose of the requirement of a public trial. The requirement that the courtroom be open whenever possible and that closure orders be narrowly tailored “is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions” …. Excluding defense counsel’s experienced colleague, who was familiar with the case, deprived defendant of his right to have this person present to assess the undercover’s testimony, and enabled the People to present the undercover’s testimony without the salutary effects of extra scrutiny.  People v Moise, 2013 NY Slip Op 05550, 1st Dept, 8-6-13

 

You might also like
MASSIVE 750-FOOT TOWER CRANE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY NOT COVERED UNDER “TEMPORARY WORKS” CLAUSE IN INSURANCE POLICY.
THE ATTEMPT TO CORRECT A SENTENCING MISTAKE IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO BE PRESENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO BE CONVICTED ON A THEORY THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THIS ANIMAL CRUELTY CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S HAVING COMPLETED HIS SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DEMAND FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY UNDER THE ELECTRONIC FILING RULES (TO WHICH DEFENDANTS HAD CONSENTED).
Breach of Contract Not a Defense to Action on Promissory Note.
IN THE FACE OF BATSON CHALLENGES, THE FACTS THAT A JUROR HAD SERVED ON A HUNG JURY AND WORKED AT A SOUP KITCHEN AND ANOTHER JUROR WORKED FOR A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION HELPING HIV-POSITIVE DRUG USERS WERE DEEMED VALID, RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING THE JURORS, THE CONCURRENCE NOTED THESE REASONS WERE BASED UPON QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS (FIRST DEPT)
THE LANDLORD’S SUMMARY PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT IN SUPREME COURT BECAUSE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS PROHIBITED BRINGING THE ACTION IN CIVIL COURT; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN OPENING IN THE FLOOR WHEN THE PLYWOOD COVERING THE OPENING SHIFTED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

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

DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of... Proof Requirements for Lack of Constructive Notice of Dangerous Condition E...