You are here: / / EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES BY...
, ,

EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES BY THE TRIAL JUDGE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS BEING INCARCERATED DURING THE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction in this murder case because the trial judge took over the questioning of one of the complaining witness and intervened in the questioning of the defendant. The court noted the prosecutor should not have questioned the defendant about his being incarcerated during the trial:

​

During the course of the trial, the Supreme Court repeatedly and prejudicially questioned the defendant, who testified in his own behalf, and also extensively intervened in the questioning of prosecution witnesses. Although defense counsel did not specifically object to the court’s questioning of the witnesses … .

​

While trial judges play a vital role in “clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial,” their power to examine witnesses “is one that should be exercised sparingly” … . Indeed, such power “carries with it so many risks of unfairness that it should be a rare instance when the court rather than counsel examines a witness” … .

Here, the Supreme Court effectively took over the direct examination of one of the complaining witnesses at key moments in her testimony where she was describing how the defendant shot the victim … . Moreover, in its extensive questioning of the defendant, the court repeatedly highlighted apparent inconsistencies in the defendant’s testimony. Viewing the record as a whole, the court assumed the appearance, if not the function, of an advocate at the trial by its extensive examination of certain witnesses … . Accordingly, we must remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial.

As a new trial must be ordered, we note that it was improper for the prosecutor to elicit from the defendant the fact that he was incarcerated pending trial … , as no legitimate State interest was served by disclosing that information under the circumstances of this case … . People v Estevez, 2017 NY Slip Op 07615, Second Dept 11-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES BY THE TRIAL JUDGE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS BEING INCARCERATED DURING THE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES BY THE TRIAL JUDGE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS BEING INCARCERATED DURING THE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES BY THE TRIAL JUDGE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS BEING INCARCERATED DURING THE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMOLITION-WORK-INJURY; THE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN A PARTY BRINGS A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN THE COUNTY TO WHICH THE PARTY WANTS VENUE CHANGED, AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE ACTION WAS STARTED, THE PARTY MUST USE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CPLR 511 (A) AND (B), WHICH REQUIRES MAKING A DEMAND ON THE OTHER PARTY BEFORE BRINGING A MOTION; HERE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE WAS NOT USED, THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE IN THE “WRONG COUNTY” AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
City Properly Held Liable for Failure to Address Excessive Speeding on Road Where Infant Plaintiff Was Struck—A Proprietary, Not a Governmental, Function Was Involved—The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity Did Not Apply Under the Facts
PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM PRIOR TO SURGERY DID NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Instead of 3212, the Procedural Irregularity Should Have Been Excused under CPLR 2001
Revocation of Suspended Judgment Proper
THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HOT PURSUIT JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS ARREST IN DEFENDANT’S HOME (SECOND ... AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF...