You are here: / / AT THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, DEFENDANT...
, ,

AT THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, DEFENDANT PRESENTED SEVERAL WITNESSES WHO SUPPORTED HIS ALIBI DEFENSE; DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE WITNESSES BUT FAILED TO INVESTIGATE; THERE CAN BE NO STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH A FAILURE; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective of counsel should have granted. Although defendant did not demonstrate “actual innocence,” the defendant presented several witnesses who testified defendant had left the party before the shooting and defendant’s hair was short, not braided, at the time of the shooting. The perpetrator was described as having braids:

Although a defendant claiming ineffective representation “bears the ultimate burden of showing . . . the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s challenged actions” … , “[i]t simply cannot be said that a total failure to investigate the facts of a case, or review pertinent records, constitutes a trial strategy resulting in meaningful representation” … . Here, the failure by the defendant’s trial counsel to contact and interview these witnesses cannot be characterized as a legitimate strategic decision since, without collecting that information, counsel could not make an informed decision as to whether the witnesses’ evidence might be helpful at trial … . The fact that some of these witnesses had criminal records does not excuse trial counsel’s failure to investigate since a witness’s “‘unsavory background[ ]’ does not render his or her ‘testimony incredible as a matter of law,'” particularly since the People regularly rely on witnesses with criminal backgrounds, and did so in this case … . Moreover, even if the witnesses’ criminal records provided a strategic basis for choosing not to present their testimony, it does not provide an excuse for counsel’s failure to investigate them as possible witnesses … . People v Davis, 2021 NY Slip Op 02408, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

You might also like
DLRA Provision Terminating Sentences After Three Years of Unrevoked Parole Did Not Apply to Non-Drug Related Offense by “Merger”
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER THE BANK COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304; THE ISSUE HAD BEEN DETERMINED IN THE BANK’S FAVOR AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECONSIDERED, SUA SPONTE, WHEN THE BANK MOVED FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Allowing Late Claim Described
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP AND MADE FINDINGS ALLOWING CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.
Block Falling from Pallet Covered Under Labor Law 240(1)/Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply to a Horse Barn Used for Commercial Purposes Despite Presence of an Apartment in the Barn
Motion to Renew Granted in Interest of Justice Despite Knowledge of Facts at Time of Original Motion/Motion to Vacate Default Granted Based On Law Office Failure
CHIDREN WERE HEALTHY AND WELL CARED FOR, NEGLECT PETITION BASED UPON MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS PROPERLY DISMISSED.

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

THE STOP OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION;... THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, A FORMER ASS’T DA, DISCUSSED DEFENDANT’S...