You are here: / / IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT...
,

IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice, determined the prosecutor deprived defendant of a fair trial by improper cross-examination of the sole defense witness:

The prosecutor repeatedly injected her own credibility into the trial while cross-examining the complainant’s grandmother, who was the sole witness for the defense other than the defendant, about pretrial out-of-court statements the grandmother made to the prosecutor concerning the complainant’s outcry … . Given the importance of the grandmother’s testimony to the defense, this conduct deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial … . People v Moulton, 2018 NY Slip Op 05203, Second Dept 7-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT,  IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT BARRED FROM SEEKING RENT OVERCHARGES BASED UPON A 1986 RENT REDUCTION ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED BUILDING THROUGH A BROKEN DOOR.
EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
THE BANK’S PROOF THAT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DISCHARGED A PATIENT WITH A HISTORY OF SCHIZOPHRENIA BUT NO HISTORY OF THREATENING OR ASSAULTING PEOPLE; THE PATIENT ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF, THE CAB DRIVER PAID BY THE HOSPITAL TO TAKE THE PATIENT HOME; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF (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).
ALLEGATION THAT LAW FIRM ADDUCED FALSE EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING MUST BE ASSERTED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT AS A NEW ACTION (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

ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER,... UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT...