You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ELICITATION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE, LACK OF PREPARATION,...
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ELICITATION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE, LACK OF PREPARATION, AND FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. On direct, the complainant did not indicate defendant participated in the robbery, but rather was simply present. Defense counsel elicited testimony from the complainant on cross which alleged defendant’s direct participation by pulling her to the ground from behind. Defense counsel erroneously believed complainant had testified in the grand jury that she did not know who pulled her to the ground. However a review of the grand jury minutes found no such testimony, indicating defense counsel was not adequately prepared. In addition, the Second Department held that defense counsel’s failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct during summation amounted to ineffective assistance. With regard to the prosecutorial misconduct, the court wrote:

Defense counsel failed to object to multiple improper summation statements made by the prosecutor. For example, among other improper comments, the prosecutor told the jury that the defendant was “cocky” and “brazen,” and that he “did not deserve” the benefit of the doubt given to him by the complainant on the night at issue; that the deliberations “should not take [the jury] very long”; that defense counsel “harped” on certain facts; that the jury could believe the complainant and not the defendant “who sits [during trial] with his buttoned up shirt hunched over”; and that the jury could rely on the complainant’s testimony “[b]ecause no amount of lawyering or manipulating of her words and the details of that event were going to change the way she told it to [the jury].” The prosecutor also reiterated, without objection, certain improper testimony of the complainant that the trial court had erroneously, over defense counsel’s objection, permitted the jury to hear regarding “how what [the defendant] did changed [the complainant’s] life.” The prosecutor reminded the jury that the complainant “can’t even put her trash out alone anymore,” and because of what the defendant did, the complainant “had to move.” These patently improper comments by the prosecutor vouched for the credibility of the complainant and the strength of the People’s case, appealed to the jury’s sympathy, disparaged the defendant, and denigrated the defense … . As no objection was made to such statements, the jury was able to consider these improper comments of the prosecutor … . People v McCray, 2016 NY Slip Op 04240, 2nd Dept 6-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ELICITATION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE, LACK OF PREPARATION, AND FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ELICITATION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE, LACK OF PREPARATION, AND FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ELICITATION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE, LACK OF PREPARATION, AND FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)

You might also like
CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED.
Defendants Not Liable for Assault by a Contractor-Security Guard—No Showing Defendants Were Aware of Security Guard’s Propensity for Violence—Security Guard’s Actions Were Outside the Scope of Employment
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, NOT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, THE AUTHORITY THEREFORE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST BID FOR RECYCLING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVITS AND REAL ESTATE CONTRACT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATIONS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION AGAINST HIM PREMISED UPON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE VIOLATED AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS STRIPPED OF ASSETS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Owners of Single Family Residence Not Liable for Defects in Abutting Sidewalk

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ROBBERY IN THE SECOND... WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SUSTAINED, BAIL GRANTED.