You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION...

DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding that defendant’s family was improperly excluded from the courtroom:

Defendant’s family members were improperly excluded from the closed courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer. It is undisputed that the evidence presented at a Hinton hearing did not demonstrate that the “exclusion of [defendant’s family members was] necessary to protect the interest advanced by the People in support of closure” … . The People ask us to interpret the record as indicating that the court did not, in fact, exclude defendant’s relatives. While the record arguably presents a degree of ambiguity in this regard, in that both the prosecutor, in the course of his argument about the officer’s efforts to conceal his identity, and the court, in discussing its decision, mentioned “the general public,” these ambiguous and equivocal indications are insufficient to persuade us that defendant’s family members were in fact allowed to be present.

The prosecutor requested that the courtroom be closed “entirely,” without making any specific provision for family members, and asserted that the closure requested was not “overly broad.” Defense counsel specifically asserted the right of the family members to be present. The court then granted the People’s application, making no specific allowance or arrangements for the family members to attend. Under these circumstances, we cannot fairly read the record to indicate that the presence of family members was permitted. People v Moore, 2016 NY Slip Op 08447, 1st Dept 12-15-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED)/CLOSURE OF COURTROOM (DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED)

You might also like
THE DECISION TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO THE RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS AS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IS DISCRETIONARY, THEREFORE A MANDAMUS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LAWS DOES NOT LIE.
SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH SOUND IN FRAUD.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRING FOR WORKPLACE DISRUPTION AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN A NOTORIOUS ASSAULT CASE [HIS CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED] DID NOT VIOLATE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW.
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING FROM A LEDGE OUTSIDE HIS HOTEL ROOM; HOTEL STAFF DID NOT ASSUME A DUTY OF CARE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; A DELAY AFTER A FAMILY MEMBER’S REQUEST THAT HOTEL STAFF CALL THE POLICE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED BY EXPERT OPINION TO HAVE CAUSED THE SUICIDE (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT “AFFILIATES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE OF A RELEASE (FIRST DEPT).
BUYER WAS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF “INCLUSIONARY AIR RIGHTS” (IAR’S); IAR’S DICTATE THE ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS ON A PARCEL OF LAND (THE ALLOWED NUMBER OF FLOORS FOR EXAMPLE) (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for the “Fiduciary Exception” to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of a Derivative Action Explained
IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM WORTHLESS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY PLED THAT GROSS NEGLIGENCE PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ‘SOLE REMEDIES’ CLAUSES AND THE DEMANDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

DENIALS OF PETITIONER’S REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES WERE PRESERVED... SUPPRESSION NOT RULED ON BELOW COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL, STRIP AND...