You are here: / Attorneys
,

CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL, TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, resolving two appeals stemming from the same incident, over a three-judge dissent in the “sentencing” appeal, affirmed the defendant’s conviction, finding that the concurrent/consecutive sentencing rules were properly applied, and the Alford plea was not tainted by erroneous information provided by defense counsel. Defendant, during the course of an armed robbery of several victims in a park, discharged a weapon, grazing one of the victims. Defendant was charged with robbery, attempted robbery and attempted first degree felony murder. The court noted that the Appellate Division here (4th Department) found that consecutive sentences for felony murder and the underlying felony could have been imposed (not the case here). while two other departments have held such sentences must be concurrent. The Court of Appeals did not address that issue because it was raised in a reply brief:

In People v Laureano, we explained that when “determining whether concurrent sentences are required, the sentencing court must first examine the statutory definitions of the crimes for which defendant has been convicted” (87 NY2d at 643). The court must then determine “whether the actus reus element is, by definition, the same for both offenses (under the first prong of the statute), or if the actus reus for one offense is, by definition, a material element of the second offense (under the second prong)” (id.). The court must focus on actus reus rather than mens rea “[b]ecause both prongs of Penal Law § 70.25 (2) refer to the ‘act or omission’ . . . that constitutes the offense” … .

If a defendant’s acts or omissions do not fit under either prong of the statute, “the People have satisfied their obligation of showing that concurrent sentences are not required” … . When there “is some overlap of the elements of multiple statutory offenses,” courts retain discretion to impose consecutive sentences “if the People can demonstrate that the acts or omissions committed by the defendant were separate and distinct acts” … , even “though they are part of a single transaction” … . * * *

We have not directly addressed whether the sentence on a first-degree felony murder charge must run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the underlying felony. At the time of defendant’s sentencing, the 4th Department had yet to address this issue, but the 2nd and 3rd Departments had, holding that a sentence for first-degree felony murder had to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the underlying felony … . However, when faced with the issue in this case, the 4th Department affirmed the sentencing court’s conclusion that the sentences could run consecutively. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that defense counsel’s advice to defendant, even if erroneous, rendered him ineffective … . People v Couser, 2016 NY Slip Op 07831, CtApp 11-22-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/SENTENCING (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/CONCURRENT SENTENCES (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/ATTORNEYS (TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/FELONY MURDER (TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

, ,

QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s statements in connection with a murder charge were made in violation of his right to counsel. A new trial was ordered. At the time defendant was questioned about a robbery and a murder (the “gas station shooting”), he was represented on a marijuana charge. The robbery and murder occurred at different times and places, but defendant allegedly was the getaway driver for both. The trial court ruled the statements related to the robbery were made in violation of defendant’s right to counsel but the statements related to the murder were admissible. The Second Department noted that it is statutorily prohibited from revisiting the trial court’s suppression of the robbery statements. Since the Second Department concluded that the robbery and murder interrogations were necessarily intertwined, the murder statements should have been suppressed:

The Court of Appeals has recognized two categories of cases in which the attachment of counsel on one crime may preclude the police from interrogating a suspect on the subject of another crime. In People v Cohen (90 NY2d 632), the Court of Appeals stated that “where the two criminal matters are so closely related transactionally, or in space or time, that questioning on the unrepresented matter would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel[,] . . . interrogation on the unrepresented crime is prohibited even in the absence of direct questioning regarding the crime on which counsel had appeared” … . With respect to the second category, the Court of Appeals has stated that “a statement may be subject to suppression where impermissible questioning on a represented charge was, when viewed as an integrated whole, not fairly separable from otherwise permissible questioning on the unrepresented matter and was, in fact, purposely exploited to aid in securing inculpatory admissions on the [unrepresented matter]” … . * * *

In light of the determination that the defendant’s right to counsel was violated when he was questioned with regard to the robbery charges, we further find that his right to counsel was violated by questioning on the factually interwoven homicide matter. Indeed, the robbery and the murder cases were so closely related that questioning about the gas station shooting “would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding” the robbery … . People v Henry, 2016 NY Slip Op 07676, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not make an inquiry into his request to represent himself. Defendant’s request was made during jury selection and was summarily rejected as untimely:

The right to self-representation … is subject to several restrictions … . Thus, “[a] defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to defend pro se provided: (1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues” … . When a defendant timely invokes the right to self-representation, “the trial court should conduct a thorough inquiry to determine whether the waiver was made intelligently and voluntarily” … .

Judged by these principles, we conclude that defendant’s right to self-representation was violated. Contrary to the trial court’s finding, defendant’s requests to proceed pro se, made during jury selection, were timely asserted … . People v Crespo, 2016 NY Slip Op 07396, 1st Dept 11-10-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL)

,

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE PROCEEDINGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined defendant had been wrongly informed by his attorney that he was subject to consecutive sentences, and therefore defendant had received ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the People presented evidence that, because of the horrendous nature of the crime, there was no possibility defendant would have been offered a plea bargain. Therefore the erroneous advice could not have affected the proceedings. Defendant’s motion to set aside his conviction was properly denied:

… [D]efendant was required to show more than incorrect advice by defense counsel. Here, the record supports the Appellate Division’s determination that there was no possibility that a reduced plea would have been offered to defendant. Therefore, the incorrect advice could not have affected the outcome of the proceedings. The People entertained no plea possibility or any reduction in the sentence given, among other things, the maximum sentence defendant faced for killing two adults and injuring a third was an aggregate term of just 5 to 15 years. Nor was there any proof that the court would have extended an offer to a reduced sentence. Rather, the sentencing court remarked that it did not think the maximum sentence was enough punishment for defendant under the circumstances of this case. People v Bank, 2016 NY Slip Op 07110, CtApp 11-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE PROCEEDINGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE PROCEEDINGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE PROCEEDINGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED)

,

FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, REVERSAL REQUIRED.

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined, inter alia, father had been deprived of his right to counsel:

Reversal is required because the father was deprived of his statutory right to assigned counsel … . The record shows that after Family Court dismissed the father’s assigned counsel, it conducted several hearings in this custody matter, and granted a final order of custody to the mother, without the father’s presence and without reassigning him counsel. Matter of Melinda M. v Anthony J.H., 2016 NY Slip Op 06978, 1st Dept 10-25-16

FAMILY LAW (FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, REVERSAL REQUIRED)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, REVERSAL REQUIRED)

,

FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined defense counsel’s failure to argue, in a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, that the People did not act with due diligence in seeking DNA test results was not demonstrated to constitute ineffective assistance:

On this record, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the argument that the People were not acting with due diligence, as there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the People were not diligent in requesting DNA testing on the evidence or that the manner in which the DNA testing was conducted by [the medical examiner] was inconsistent with standard laboratory protocols. In addition, at the time of defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion, there already was Appellate Division authority holding that the period of time needed to obtain the results of DNA testing could be excluded from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance … . People v Henderson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06938, CtApp 10-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/DNA TESTING (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/SPEEDY TRIAL (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

,

PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, affirming the dismissal of the attempted first degree murder indictment on speedy trial grounds, determined the People did not act with due diligence in seeking DNA test results. DNA had been recovered from the gun involved. A DNA swab was not taken from the defendant until nine months after indictment:

The time to conduct DNA testing and to produce a DNA report may, under certain circumstances, be excluded from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance. To invoke the exclusion provided in CPL 30.30 (4) (g), however, the People must exercise due diligence in obtaining the evidence. If the exclusion “is to be given reasonable effect and [] is to fulfill the legislative purpose, [it] must be limited to instances in which the prosecution’s inability to proceed is justified by the purposes of the investigation and credible, vigorous activity in pursuing it” … . In addition, while we have recognized that “‘[t]here is no precise definition of what constitutes an exceptional circumstance under CPL 30.30 (4) (g),'” we have stated “that the range of the term’s application is limited by the dominant legislative intent informing CPL 30.30, namely, to discourage prosecutorial inaction” … .

Here, as a result of the People’s inaction in obtaining defendant’s DNA exemplar, the 161-day period of delay to test the DNA and to produce the DNA report was not excludable from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance. People v Clarke, 2016 NY Slip Op 06939, CtApp 10-25-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)/ SPEEDY TRIAL (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)/DNA TESTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)

, , ,

ERROR TO ALLOW PROSECUTOR TO IMPEACH HER OWN WITNESS WITH THE WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Second Department determined the allowing the prosecutor to impeach her own witness with the witness’s grand jury testimony, allowing inadmissible hearsay, together with the prosecutor’s improper remarks in summation, required reversal in the interest of justIce:

… [A] new trial is warranted as a result of two evidentiary errors, both of which were compounded by improper remarks made during the People’s summation. Specifically, the Supreme Court allowed the prosecutor to impeach one of her own witnesses, who testified at trial that it was dark at the time of the shooting and she “couldn’t really see” the shooter. The prosecutor was permitted to read that witness’s prior grand jury testimony, in which she stated that she recognized the shooter as a person going by the nickname of E-Villain. This was error … . Moreover, during summation, the prosecutor compounded the error by improperly using the prior inconsistent statement as evidence in chief … , telling the jury that when that witness previously spoke to the police, to an assistant district attorney, and to the grand jury, “on each of those occasions, she said what it is she saw and who it is that she saw do it,” and urging the jury to find “she was not telling you the truth when she said that I now am telling you I did not see who did it, that it was too dark.” Later, the prosecutor went one step further, stating, in direct contradiction to the witness’s trial testimony, that “[she] saw who it was.”

The Supreme Court also erred in allowing another witness to testify that a “little girl said that [the defendant] shot [the victim]” … . Moreover, on summation, the prosecutor not only repeated the improper hearsay testimony but also mispresented the defendant as having told one of the witnesses, “You know what, that little girl that told you that was a hundred percent right.” People v Thomas, 2016 NY Slip Op 06851, 2nd Dept 10-19-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S IMPEACHMENT OF PEOPLE’S WITNESS WITH GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL)/APPEALS (EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/GRAND JURY (PROSECUTOR’S IMPEACHMENT OF PEOPLE’S WITNESS WITH GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL)/IMPEACHMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S IMPEACHMENT OF PEOPLE’S WITNESS WITH GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)

, ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant sufficiently alleged he was misinformed about the deportation consequences of his guilty plea and he would not have pled guilty if he had known of those consequences:

Here, the defendant alleged in an affidavit that his attorney advised him that there would be no immigration consequences to his plea of guilty if he was sentenced to not more than one year in jail, and that immigration authorities would not seek him out in Massachusetts, where he resided, since his case was in New York. * * * … [A]lthough the defendant’s claim of misadvice was based solely on his own sworn allegations, the defendant explained his failure to submit an affirmation from his former attorney and it is unlikely, as the People suggest, that there were witnesses to counsel’s provision of confidential advice or any documents created reflecting the content of that advice * * *

… [T]he defendant averred that he had been a lawful permanent resident for 24 years, that he had a 7-year-old son, that his parents and four siblings all lived in the United States, and that he was employed at the same job for 10 years. Further, if sentenced as a first felony drug offender, as he was in connection with his plea of guilty, the defendant’s sentencing exposure was a maximum of 5½ years of imprisonment (see Penal Law § 70.70[2][a][ii]). In light of these circumstances, there is a question of fact as to whether it is reasonably probable that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty had he been correctly advised as to the deportation consequences of the plea … . People v Roberts, 2016 NY Slip Op 06729, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES)/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES)

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct to which defense counsel did not object. The prosecutor grossly exaggerated the nature and importance of DNA evidence found on a weapon. Defense counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance:

At trial, the People presented testimony of a forensic expert to discuss DNA evidence collected from the gun, but the testimony was not conclusive. The expert testified that she analyzed the DNA mixture and determined that defendant was among 1 in 15 Americans who could not be excluded as a contributor. Nevertheless, on summation, the prosecutor grossly exaggerated the DNA evidence as “overwhelming” proof establishing defendant’s “guilt beyond all doubt” and posited: “If the defendant had not possessed the gun, wouldn’t science have excluded him?” In our view, the prosecutor’s flagrant distortion of the DNA evidence caused defendant such substantial prejudice that he was denied due process of law, particularly in light of the circumstantial nature of the People’s case … . In light of the foregoing, we agree with defendant’s related contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel owing to defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s misconduct during summation … . People v Rozier, 2016 NY Slip Op 06577, 4th Dept 10-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE)

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