You are here: / / THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE NEGOTIATED A PLEA DEAL WITH A CO-DEFENDANT...
,

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE NEGOTIATED A PLEA DEAL WITH A CO-DEFENDANT REQUIRING TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR A MORE FAVORABLE SENTENCE; NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (F0URTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge assumed the function of an interested party when he negotiated and entered into a plea agreement with a co-defendant requiring the co-defendant to testify against the defendant in exchange for a more favorable sentence:

… [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” … . We conclude that, “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 … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 05217, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

You might also like
LOCAL LAWS CONCERNING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR RETIRED TOWN EMPLOYEES WHICH WERE NOT ENACTED BY REFERENDUM ARE ENTIRELY INVALID (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Insufficient Break Between “Unwarned” Statement and Statement Made Subsequently After the Miranda Warnings Were Given—Entire Statement Should Have Been Suppressed
Appeal Waiver Did Not Encompass Youthful Offender Status/Defendant Should Have Been Adjudicated a Youthful Offender
THE COURT OF CLAIMS, NOT SUPREME COURT, IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR THIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCIDENT—THE COLLAPSE OF A DECK—EVER HAPPENED IN THIS LABOR LAW 24O (1) ACTION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Motion to Vacate Conviction Based upon Co-Defendant’s Affidavit Stating Defendant Not Involved Denied
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN PRIOR NOTICE OF THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DECISION TO ASSESS 25 POINTS FOR A RISK FACTOR WHEN THE SORA BOARD SUGGESTED FIVE AND THE PEOPLE AGREED TO FIVE; NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Monetary Sanction Against Plaintiff’s Attorney and Striking of Complaint Deemed Appropriate Where Discovery Delays Unexplained

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 JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER A THEORY OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE... SUPREME COURT MUST RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL...