You are here: / / THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF ...
,

THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES.

The First Department determined defendant was not deprived of his right to call his codefendant as a witness. Although he strongly expressed his wish to do so, defense counsel properly exercised professional judgment in deciding against calling the witness:

“If defense counsel solely defers to a defendant, without exercising his or her professional judgment, on a decision that is for the attorney, not the accused, to make because it is not fundamental, the defendant is deprived of the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him or her” … . Whether to call a witness is a strategic decision to be made by defense counsel … . Moreover, counsel had a sound reason for not calling the codefendant, who, in his plea allocution, had implicated defendant in the drug sale. To the extent defendant is claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, that claim is likewise without merit … . People v Sheard, 2016 NY Slip Op 08186, 1st Dept 12-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL, THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES)

You might also like
VASTLY DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF THE INCIDENT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE A PISTOL ALLEGED TO BE THE SAME TYPE OF WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME WAS NOT ERROR (FIRST DEPT).
NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
THERE WAS NO PROOF THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 WAS MAILED TO THE PROPER ADDRESS (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED.
OPENING STATEMENT ALLEGING EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS FATALLY INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS, NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND.
CPLR 7515, ENACTED IN 2018, DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PROHIBIT MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS (FIRST DEPT).
CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF.

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 ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY... TERMINATION SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE, TEACHER SUGGESTED STUDENTS’ ANSWERS...