You are here: / / MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY...
,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged, exhaustive opinion by Justice Miller (too detailed to be fairly summarized here), determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction for a 1991 murder was properly granted (requiring a new trial). The early 90’s trial lasted one day. One of the police investigators has since been implicated in facilitating false identification testimony. The finger and palm print evidence did not match the defendant or his co-defendant. The blood evidence didn’t match. Crucial blood evidence was never tested and may have been lost. The identification evidence, the only evidence upon which the conviction could be based, was problematic. With respect to the criteria for newly discovered evidence in this context, the court wrote:

… [A] motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence should only be granted if the court finds, as a factual matter, that the movant has demonstrated that “[1] [n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment . . . [2] which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and [3] which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.10[1][g]).

The remaining three criteria should be used to evaluate the ultimate issue of whether the new evidence would “create a probability” of a more favorable verdict… . In assessing the probable impact of the new evidence, the court should consider whether and to what extent the new evidence is (1) material to the pertinent issues in the case, (2) cumulative to evidence that was already presented to the jury, and (3) merely impeaching or contradicting the evidence presented at trial … . People v Hargrove, 2018 NY Slip Op 02649, Second Dept 4-18-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED.
ALTHOUGH THE CITY GAVE A PERMIT TO A BUS COMPANY TO USE A PARKING LOT, THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT RELINQUISHED ALL CONTROL OVER THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
VEHICLE WHICH STOPPED BEHIND A DISABLED VEHICLE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION (SECOND DEPT).
INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS DAMAGES-ONLY PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF; $5,500,000 VERDICT SET ASIDE AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED SUCH THAT THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WOULD BE DEEMED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE BY A CORPORATION OWNED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AND WHOSE OFFICE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL (SECOND DEPT).
DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BUT DID NOT NOTIFY COUNSEL OF THE PROCEDURE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Under the Circumstances, the Filing of a Family Offense Petition Against the Father and the Issuance of an Order of Protection Made the Children Dependent on a Juvenile Court, a Prerequisite for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
SURVEILLANCE TAPE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IT WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED BY DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THE TAPE ACCURATELY DEPICTED WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE.

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

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS... COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A TOWN POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS INJURED UNDERGOING...