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
Statement Identifying Shooter Made by a Witness Who Did Not See the Shooting Should Not Have Been Admitted Under the Present Sense Impression Exception to the Hearsay Rule
GRAND JURY MINUTES SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION STEMMING FROM A FATAL SHOOTING BY A POLICE OFFICER.
THE MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STATEMENTS MADE TO HEALTHCARE PERSONNEL AND MEDICAL RECORDS WERE RELEVANT TO LIABILITY (FOURTH DEPT).
Trial Court Should Not Have Precluded Expert Testimony Based Upon Failure to Make Timely Disclosures— Rather, the Trial Should Have Been Adjourned
THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT).
JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
THE UNIQUE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE FOR VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION WERE NOT MET; THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT STIPULATED TO THE ACCURACY OF AN INACCURATE SPECIAL INFORMATION ABOUT A PRIOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CONVICTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE A SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE FAILURE “INFECTED” THE GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE SUPPRESSION COULD HAVE LED TO DISMISSAL OF SOME OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

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...