You are here: / / Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified...
, ,

Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that a new trial was required because the prosecutor created the impression a non-testifying witness [Drake] had identified the defendant as the shooter.  Although the error was not preserved by objection, the court addressed the issue in the interest of justice.  The court noted as well that the defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s comments during summation (which reinforced the impression) were erroneously overruled:

Generally, during cross-examination, a party cannot introduce extrinsic evidence or call another witness to contradict a witness’s answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching such witness’s credibility … . As the defendant correctly contends, during the cross-examination of Lloyd, the prosecutor improperly gave the impression that Drake, who did not testify, implicated the defendant while the police questioned her … . Notably, the prosecutor acknowledged at the second trial that Drake had testified at the initial trial, and that Drake had not identified the defendant as having been present at the party.

The defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he [or she] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant ha[s] had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 53-54; see People v Pealer, 20 NY3d 447, 453, cert denied _____US_____, 134 S Ct 105). Here, the defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him was violated.  People v Lloyd, 2014 NY Slip Op 01631, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

You might also like
RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.
PAYOR OF VOLUNTARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR THOSE PAYMENTS IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Town Board Should Not Have Considered the Environmental Impact of Only One Small Part of a Revitalization Project, as Opposed to the Entire Revitalization Project, without Explaining the Reasons for Limiting Its Review In Accordance with the Requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
​ IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;” THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO DISMSS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACT WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATE FINANCE LAW AND WAS NOT VALID UNTIL APPROVED BY THE STATE COMPTROLLER, NO RECOVERY FOR DELAYS IN THE PERIOD BEFORE THE CONTRACT WAS APPROVED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY, WITHOUT EVIDENCE FROM THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT WHO MADE THE DRUG PURCHASES, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DARDEN HEARING (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defendant Company’s Failure to Keep Current Address On File With Secretary... “Law Office Failure” Excuse for Failure to Enter a Default Judgment...