You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION...

DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel had relied, during voir dire, on the People’s representation that the complainant could not be located and would not testify. After voir dire, but before opening statements, defense counsel was informed the complainant had been found and would testify:

The People had omitted the complainant from their witness list because they were unable to locate him in the two years between the incident and the trial. However, after the jury was selected, and just before opening arguments, they advised the court that they had located the complainant, and the court permitted him to testify the next day.

Defense counsel clearly “relied to her detriment on her expectation that the People would not call this witness,” the sole eyewitness to the incident, and was substantially prejudiced by the change of course… . Defense counsel had used voir dire to question jurors about other issues, including their ability to evaluate videotape evidence, believing that this would be the main evidence in the case, and she had not questioned prospective jurors about their ability to impartially evaluate a victim’s testimony. In addition, because the defense had represented to the jury during voir dire that no complainant would appear, the complainant’s appearance at trial would undermine the defense’s credibility.

Thus, as counsel pointed out, her questioning and selection of jurors was geared entirely to a trial without the complainant’s testimony, and was totally unsuited to a trial with his testimony. People v Kyser, 2018 NY Slip Op 01160, Frist Dept 2-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/VOIR DIRE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/WITNESSES (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

/by
You might also like
Questions of Fact Re: Whether School Owed Duty of Care to Student Struck by a Car While Playing Tag Five Minutes Before School Began and Whether a Breach of that Duty Proximately Caused the Injury
THE SUPPRESSION HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REOPENED; EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED DRUG TRAFFICKING AS BACKGROUND FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED, PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THE WETNESS ON WHICH SHE SLIPPED AND FELL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENT FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR, THEREFORE THE LANDLORD HAD NEITHER ACTUAL NOR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DRUG, WHICH CAN DISSOLVE BLOOD CLOTS IN MINUTES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM A PULMONARY EMBOLISM UPON ADMISSION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL COUNSEL PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM “INSURANCE” IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS.
Although “Imprudent” in Hindsight, ​Insurer Did Not Breach Duty of Good Faith by Refusing to Offer a Settlement at the Policy Limit

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

INDENTURE TRUSTEE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES UNDER A... JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE...