You are here: / / IT WAS NOT ERROR TO REMOVE THE DISRUPTIVE DEFENDANT FROM THE COURTROOM...
, , ,

IT WAS NOT ERROR TO REMOVE THE DISRUPTIVE DEFENDANT FROM THE COURTROOM WITHOUT WARNING JUST PRIOR THE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE VERDICT AND THE POLLING OF THE JURY; APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE “REMOVAL” ISSUE ON DIRECT APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over an extensive dissenting opinion, reversing the grant of a writ of coram nobis, determined: (1) defendant was properly removed from court without warning before the verdict and the poll of the jurors; and (2) appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise defendant’s removal from the court on direct appeal. Removal was justified by the defendant’s acts of violence, verbal abuse and screaming in the courtroom:

We reject the prosecution’s claim that any error was de minimis based on the timing of defendant’s removal from the courtroom. There is no material stage of the proceeding that is any less consequential to a defendant’s right to be present. However, we agree that the trial court’s actions were appropriate under the unique circumstances of this case and in no way contrary to law.

A defendant has a constitutional right “to be present at all material stages of their criminal trial,” which includes the reading of the verdict and the polling of the jury … . Further, CPL 260.20 provides that a defendant must be present during the trial but may be removed if they are “disorderly and disruptive” such that the “trial cannot be carried on with [the defendant] in the courtroom [] if , after [they] have been warned by the court that [they] will be removed if [they] continue such conduct, [they] continue to engage in such conduct.” A court may dispense with the constitutional and statutory warnings when it is impracticable to give them … . … That was the case here. * * *

The Appellate Division erroneously concluded that the trial court violated defendant’s right to be present, and therefore incorrectly granted defendant’s writ of error coram nobis on the sole ground that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this meritless claim on direct appeal … . People v Dunton, 2024 NY Slip Op 02130, CtApp 4-23-24

Practice Point: In situations where warning a disruptive defendant is impractical, it is not error to remove the defendant from the courtroom without warning. Here defendant was removed just prior to the announcement of the verdict and the polling of the jurors, a material stage of the trial. Under the unique circumstances of this case defendant’s removal was not error.

 

You might also like
OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT PROPERLY REVOKED PETITIONER-RADIATION-ONCOLOGIST’S LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE; THE BOARD’S EXPERT OPINED THAT PETITIONER’S USE OF HIGHER “CURATIVE” RADIATION DOSES WHEN LOWER “PALLIATIVE” DOSES WERE APPROPRIATE FELL SHORT OF THE RELEVANT STANDARD OF CARE (CT APP).
HERE A “CERTIFICATE OF DELINQUENCY” WAS NEVER FILED FOR ANY VIOLATION OF PROBATION BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE PERIOD OF PROBATION EXPIRED WHILE DEFENDANT WAS STILL UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE DRUG TREATMENT COURT; WHEN DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE TERMS OF PROBATION AGAIN, PROBATION WAS REVOKED AND DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO INCARCERATION; BECAUSE THE REVOCATION AND SENTENCE TOOK PLACE AFTER THE PERIOD OF PROBATION EXPIRED, THE SENTENCING COURT HAD BEEN STRIPPED OF JURISDICTION (CT APP).
Defense Counsel’s Absence When Judge Decided to Replace a Sick Juror Not Preserved by Objection/Court Need Not Put on the Record Its Consideration of Alternatives to Courtroom Closure/Factual Allegations Insufficient to Justify a Suppression Hearing
In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled to a Commission Upon the Sale of Assets by the Principal, the Agreement Created an Exclusive Agency, which Merely Precluded the Principal from Hiring Another Agent, but Did Not Create, in the Agent, an Exclusive Right to Sell
DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING THE SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX DISCUSSIONS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS; THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE ANNOUNCED HIS SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX RULINGS IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT ENOUGH; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
Attorney Conflict Waiver Criteria Discussed/Whether Molineux Analysis Should Be Applied to “Prior Bad Thoughts” in Journal Entries Discussed
THE MURDER COUNT, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT SEEK PERMISSION TO RESUBMIT IT AFTER THE GRAND JURY DEADLOCKED ON THE CHARGE, DID NOT TAINT THE CONVICTION ON THE MANSLAUGHTER COUNT UNDER A SPILL-OVER ANALYSIS (CT APP).

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

IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT... A JUROR WAS CONVINCED DEFENDANT HAD FOLLOWED HER HOME AND SO INFORMED THE JURY...