You are here: / / THE JUDGE’S POLICY OF NOT LETTING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INTO THE...
,

THE JUDGE’S POLICY OF NOT LETTING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INTO THE COURTROOM DURING TESTIMONY HAD THE UNINTENDED EFFECT OF EXCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP) ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the procedure imposed by the judge effectively prevented members of the murder victim’s family from attending parts of the trial. Although the judge did not mean to exclude members of the public from the trial, the judge’s policy of not letting members of the public into the courtroom during testimony was improperly implemented and had the unintended result of excluding members of the public. The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge concurrence, ordered a new trial:

The trial judge is in charge of the courtroom and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that any limitation on a defendant’s right to a public trial conforms with constitutional dictates. At defendant’s trial, the judge delegated to court officers the implementation of the judge’s general policy of prohibiting the public from entering or exiting the courtroom while a witness testifies. We agree with the Appellate Division that members of the public were excluded from the courtroom at a time when they should have had access under the terms of the extant policy. But, contrary to the Appellate Division’s conclusion, that error directly resulted from the acts of court officials enforcing the trial judge’s order. Therefore, the court violated defendant’s right to a public trial. People v Muhammad, 2023 NY Slip Op 02756, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: Even if the judge did not intend to exclude members of the public from the trial, the judge’s policy of not allowing anyone to enter the courtroom during testimony had that effect. New trial ordered.

 

You might also like
LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD.
PARENT CORPORATION NOT LIABLE, UNDER A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY THEORY, FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY.
DESIGNATING PETITION PERMEATED BY FRAUD INVALIDATED; THREE JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
Civil Commitment of Two Sex Offenders Reversed—In One Case the Proof the Offender Had “Serious Difficulty In Controlling” His Sexual Conduct Within the Meaning of Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law Was Legally Insufficient—In the Other Case, Proof the Offender Suffered from Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPC) Alone Did Not Meet the Definition of “Mental Abnormality” in Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law
ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO CONDUCT A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ANALYSIS OF DNA EVIDENCE USING THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL WAS ERROR, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR BECAUSE OF VIDEO EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIALLY CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO THE GUN FOUND BY THE POLICE; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ON WHETHER THE ADMISSION OF THE DNA EVIDENVE CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO THE GUN WAS HARMLESS (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH A DEFENDANT CAN PROPERLY REQUEST A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT BASED ON HIS “RELEASE ENVIRONMENT.” I.E., GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, STRONG FAMILY SUPPORT, ETC., THE DEFENDANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THE “RELEASE ENVIRONMENT” WAS NOT ADEQUATELY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE GUIDELINES AND HIS “RELEASE ENVIRONMENT” REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF REOFFENDING (CT APP).
Hospital Did Not Owe Intoxicated Patient a Duty to Prevent Him from Leaving Hospital
NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING, WAIVER BY COUNSEL NOT SUFFICIENT.

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 JUDGE CLOSED THIS MURDER TRIAL TO THE PUBLIC CITING “INTIMIDATION”... THE CITY OF OGDENSBURG PROPERLY PASSED A LOCAL LAW REPEALING A PRIOR LOCAL LAW...