You are here: / / IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT...
,

IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge should not have negotiated a plea deal with a codefendant in exchange for testimony against the defendant:

… [T]he court committed reversible error when it “negotiated and entered into a [plea] agreement with a codefendant[,] requiring that individual to testify against defendant in exchange for a more favorable sentence” … . Here, “by assuming the function of an interested party and deviating from its own role as a neutral arbiter, the trial court denied defendant his due process right to [a] fair trial in a fair tribunal’ ” … . We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial before a different justice on counts one and two of the indictment … . People v Lawhorn, 2019 NY Slip Op 09223, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

You might also like
A LOCAL ONLINE NEWS OUTLET SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM A FAMILY COURT HEARING REGARDING WHETHER A DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM A NEGLECT PROCEEDING ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS; THE OUTLET IS ENTITLED TO A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE RELATED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WAS NOT TRANSFERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT IN HIS BACKYARD AND AT THE HOSPITAL WAS INVESTIGATORY AND DID NOT REQUIRE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; THERE WAS A DETAILED, FACT-SPECIFIC DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).
Order Granting a Motion In Limine Is Appealable If It Effectively Limits the Presentation of a Legal Theory at Trial
THE TRANSCRIBED RECORD IS WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RECORD COULD NOT BE RECONSTRUCTED; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
JAIL IS NOT A ‘PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR PETITIONER’S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT ALLEGING UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN JAIL (FOURTH 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

FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENSE ABOUT A SECOND EYEWITNESS TO THE SHOOTING WAS... DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE RAISED QUESTIONS...