You are here: / / THE EX PARTE ORDER ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO SEIZE AND READ DEFENDANT’S...
, ,

THE EX PARTE ORDER ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO SEIZE AND READ DEFENDANT’S NON-LEGAL MAIL DID NOT REQUIRE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE PROSECUTOR OR A MISTRIAL; THE PROSECUTOR’S DEMONSTRATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE MURDER WEAPON (A KNIFE) DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL; AND THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE COURT AND THE ATTORNEYS OF THE JURY NOTE REQUESTING THE EXAMINATION OF THE KNIFE WAS NOT AN O’RAMA VIOLATION AND DID NOT WARRANT A MISTRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, affirmed defendant’s murder conviction after addressing several unusual issues in depth: (1) The prosecutor obtained a ex parte order allowing the opening and reading of defendant’s non-legal mail to determine whether defendant was threatening an eyewitness. After reading two batches of mail, the prosecutor determined no threats were being made, informed defense counsel of the order and turned the mail over to defense counsel. The First Department determined there were no related grounds for disqualifying the prosecutor or for granting a mistrial. (2) When the defendant was on the stand he denied knowing the knife (murder weapon) could be flipped open with one hand. During her questioning the prosecutor demonstrated that the knife could be flipped open. The Second Department determined the “prosecutor-as-an-unsworn witness” argument did not warrant a mistrial, in part because of the curative instructions to the jury. (3) The knife was brought into the jury room after a request from the jury about which the court and the attorneys were not made aware. The judge and the attorneys had agreed that the jury’s examination of the knife would be allowed and the examination was done according to the agreed procedure. This was not an O’Rama violation because it involved only the examination of a physical object, not an instruction or the substance of any trial evidence. Therefore a mistrial on this ground was not warranted. People v Jenkins, 2020 NY Slip Op 04014, First Dept 7-16-20

 

You might also like
SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENT’S STATUTORY ACTIONS AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S OFFICE OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE AUTISTIC SIX-YEAR-OLD STUDENT WAS TRANSPORTED TO SCHOOL ON A FULL-SIZED BUS, GENERATING NINE INCIDENT REPORTS IN A SIX-WEEK PERIOD, INSTEAD OF THE MINI-BUS REQUIRED BY THE INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (FIRST DEPT).
EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.
PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO EMPTY A 300 POUND BIN INTO A DUMPSTER, FIVE TO SEVEN FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).
VERDICT AWARDING $0 DAMAGES FOR FUTURE AND PAIN SUFFERING SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, $100,000 WOULD BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Judicial Review of Agency’s Action Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Explained
HERE AN INDEPENDENT CLEANING CONTRACTOR APPARENTLY CREATED A DANGEROUS FLOOR CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF; ALTHOUGH THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE, MARSHALLS, THE RETAIL STORE WHERE THE INJURY OCCURRED, COULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE BECAUSE MARSHALLS HAS A NONDELGABLE DUTY TO KEEP THE PUBLIC AREAS OF ITS STORE SAFE; WHETEHER MARSHALLS HAD NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IS NOT AN ISSUE WHERE VICARIOUS LIABILITY MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Service of a Notice of Claim on the City Did Not Constitute the Service of a Notice of Claim on the New York City Transit Authority

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

AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PROPERLY DENIED THE FOIL REQUEST FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS...