You are here: / / CELL PHONE COMPANY WITNESS WAS NOT AN ENGINEER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...
, ,

CELL PHONE COMPANY WITNESS WAS NOT AN ENGINEER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT HOW FAR DEFENDANT’S PHONE WAS FROM THE TOWER, POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE MARSHALED THE EVIDENCE TO FAVOR THE PROSECUTION, THESE ERRORS, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL ERRORS, CUMULATIVELY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, described a number of errors which had the cumulative effect of depriving defendant of a fair trial. Those errors include: (1) the witness from the cell phone company was not an engineer and therefore could not provide competent expert opinion about where defendant’s cell phone was in relation to the cell phone tower which picked up the signal; (2) a police officer should not have been allowed to testify that the victim had twice identified the defendant by name; (3) the charge to the jury improperly marshaled the identification evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution; (4) the court should have given the missing witness jury instruction for two lead detectives who had interviewed the victim and a witness; and (5) the judge should not have referenced the defendant’s failure to testify (twice). With respect to the cell tower and identification evidence, the court wrote:

“[T]estimony on how cell phone towers operate must be offered by an expert witness” because an analysis of the possible ranges of cell phone towers and how they operate is beyond a juror’s day-to-day experience and knowledge … . [The witness] was not an engineer and was not qualified, without an engineering background, to reach further conclusions about why defendant’s cell phone hit the Starling Avenue tower, i.e. whether it was because it was closest or strongest … . …

The trial court also permitted a police officer to testify twice, over defense objection, that the victim had identified her attacker as “male Hispanic, bald, by the name of Jose Ortiz.” This too was error. “Testimony by one witness (e.g., a police officer) to a previous identification of the defendant by another witness (e.g., a victim) is inadmissible” … . People v Ortiz, 2019 NY Slip Op 00221, First Dept 1-15-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S DRUG SALE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF THE FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT.
EMAILS DID NOT EXPLICITLY WAIVE THE INITIAL AGREEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WOULD NOT BE BOUND UNTIL A FORMAL AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED, NO CONTRACT WAS CREATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE, ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S DISPARAGING REMARKS, AND ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, AMOUNTED TO A DEPRIVATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL; GUILTY PLEA WITHDRAWN AND VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE NOT CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE SCAFFOLD OR A FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALLEGED VICTIM OF ASSAULT PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY FROM EGYPT VIA SKYPE.
NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CLUB COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, WHETHER THE CLUB WAS THE SPECIAL EMPLOYER OF THE BOUNCERS AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY, AND WHETHER THERE WAS DRAM SHOP ACT LIABILITY (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

COURT ORDER WAS AMBIGUOUS AND ERRONEOUS AND COULD NOT THEREFORE BE THE BASIS... INSURANCE LAW STATUTE AND RELATED REGULATIONS WHICH PROHIBIT REAL PROPERTY TITLE...