You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER REQUESTING A PLEA-BARGAIN CONFERENCE WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the marijuana-related indictments should have been granted on speedy trial grounds. The Fourth Department found that defense counsel’s letter asking for a discussion of a plea bargain could not be construed as a waiver of defendant’s speedy trial rights:

Defense counsel did not explicitly state or even suggest in his letter that he was waiving his client’s rights to a speedy trial under CPL 30.30; instead, counsel merely requested an opportunity to discuss a plea bargain before the District Attorney presented the case to the grand jury. In our view, that request does not constitute an explicit and “unambiguous” waiver of defendant’s speedy trial rights … , and we thus conclude that “the People failed to meet their burden of proving that the disputed . . . period was not chargeable to them” … . People v Leubner, 2016 NY Slip Op 06569, 4th Dept 10-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER REQUESTING A PLEA-BARGAIN CONFERENCE WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS)/SPEEDY TRIAL (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER REQUESTING A PLEA-BARGAIN CONFERENCE WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS)

SIX YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING DEFENDANT TO TRIAL WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY THE PEOPLE’S ATTEMPT TO GAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE; DISMISSAL ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds stemming from the six-year delay between the shooting and trial. The defendant and another man, Armstead, were charged in the shooting death of a bystander while intending to shoot another. The People wanted to convict Armstead before trying defendant in the hope Armstead would testify against defendant. Three trials of Armstead ended in at least a partial mistrial. Before the fourth trial, Armstead pled guilty to manslaughter. Over the course of the six years, delays were incurred, inter alia, because counsel were unavailable and because of damage caused by Hurricane Sandy:

The chronology of this case highlights some of the problems faced by the courts of this state in large metropolitan areas. These include overburdened courts, overcrowded jails, and overworked prosecutors and legal services defense counsel. Nevertheless, these issues must be considered in the context of this particular case as they affect, if at all, this particular defendant.

The dissent tends to minimize the defense side of the equation in determining the reason for the delay, choosing to focus on the prosecution’s attempt to get Armstead to testify against defendant as the main reason for the delay in bringing him to trial. While the attempt to get Armstead to testify against defendant certainly played an important role in the delay, it is not the only reason and ignores the many other causes for the delay.

The … chronology shows that much of the delay was occasioned by requests for adjournments by defendant and/or his codefendant for motion practice, change of counsel, discovery proceedings, unavailability of co-defendant’s counsel and the like. In the analogous CPL 30.30 situation, adjournments granted with a codefendant’s consent are not chargeable to the People … , and they should not be chargeable here. Despite the dissent’s conclusion to the contrary, the record supports the conclusion that these adjournments were not motivated by a goal on the part of the People to gain an unfair tactical advantage over defendant … . People v Wiggins, 2016 NY Slip Op 06538, 1st Dept 10-6-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SIX YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING DEFENDANT TO TRIAL WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY THE PEOPLE’S ATTEMPT TO GAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE; DISMISSAL ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS PROPERLY DENIED)/SPEEDY TRIAL (SIX YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING DEFENDANT TO TRIAL WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY THE PEOPLE’S ATTEMPT TO GAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE; DISMISSAL ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS PROPERLY DENIED)

,

15-YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND IS A GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN SETTING THE SORA RISK LEVEL.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a downward departure based upon a 15-year period during which defendant did not reoffend. Defendant’s SORA risk level was reduced from three to two:

In light of the purpose of SORA, which is to assess the risk that the offender poses while at liberty, lengthy periods during which the defendant has been at liberty after the offense are significant in determining the risk of reoffense and the danger posed in the event of reoffense …  . Since these periods are not taken into account in the risk assessment instrument (hereinafter the RAI), they are a permissible ground for departure … . Here, the defendant committed a sex offense in New Jersey in 1982. In the time between that crime and the SORA hearing, which was held in 2012, after the defendant returned to New York, he was incarcerated in New Jersey for approximately 15 years, and he was also at liberty for approximately the same amount of time without reoffending. In light of the lengthy amount of time without reoffense, we conclude that the RAI overstated the defendant’s risk of reoffense. People v Sotomayer, 2016 NY Slip Op 06482, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (15-YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND IS A GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN SETTING THE SORA RISK LEVEL)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (15-YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND IS A GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN SETTING THE SORA RISK LEVEL)

,

SEARCH OF BRIEFCASE FOUND NEAR DEFENDANT UPON ARREST WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENCE OF ROBBERY FOUND IN THE BRIEFCASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

 

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of a briefcase found on a parked car near where defendant was arrested. Defendant was identified by a store clerk as the person who had just robbed him at gunpoint and a loaded gun was found on defendant’s person upon arrest:

Because “[a]ll warrantless searches presumptively are unreasonable per se, . . . [w]here a warrant has not been obtained, it is the People who have the burden of overcoming this presumption of unreasonableness” … . Under the New York State Constitution, an individual’s right of privacy in his or her personal effects dictates that a warrantless search incident to arrest be deemed unreasonable unless (1) it satisfies certain “spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest” and (2) it is justified by the presence of exigent circumstances … . “Exigency must be affirmatively demonstrated” … . Exigent circumstances may be established by a showing that the search was necessary to ensure the safety of the public or the arresting officer, or that it was necessary to prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the search of the briefcase was not justified as a search incident to a lawful arrest. The People failed to present evidence establishing exigent circumstances at the time of the arrest that would justify the search. The arresting officer did not claim that he searched the briefcase out of concern for the safety of himself or the public and, in any event, the circumstances did not support a reasonable belief that the briefcase contained a weapon … . Additionally, the officer did not claim that he searched the briefcase to prevent the defendant from destroying evidence and, in any event, the facts do not support such a claim. Moreover, despite the People’s contention to the contrary, the error was not harmless, as it cannot be said that there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant of robbery in the first degree had it not been for the error … . People v Houston, 2016 NY Slip Op 06510, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF BRIEFCASE FOUND NEAR DEFENDANT UPON ARREST WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENCE OF ROBBERY FOUND IN THE BRIEFCASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH OF BRIEFCASE FOUND NEAR DEFENDANT UPON ARREST WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENCE OF ROBBERY FOUND IN THE BRIEFCASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH OF BRIEFCASE FOUND NEAR DEFENDANT UPON ARREST WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENCE OF ROBBERY FOUND IN THE BRIEFCASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED)

SENTENCE FOR CONSPIRACY COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY WITH SENTENCES FOR OVERT ACTS WITH WHICH DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CHARGED IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION.

The Second Department determined the sentences imposed for conspiracy and criminal possession of a controlled substance should run concurrently, not consecutively. The possession offenses, charged in a superior court information (SCI) to which defendant pled guilty, were the overt acts charged in the conspiracy count of a subsequent indictment:

As charged here, the underlying crimes were criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. The offenses of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, to which the defendant pleaded guilty as charged under the SCI, were based on the same acts charged, in the indictment, as overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy in the second degree count. As such, the actus reus of each of the offenses charged in the SCI was, by definition, “a material element” of the offense charged in the indictment … . Since the People failed to establish the legality of consecutive sentences by showing that the acts committed by the defendant were separate and distinct acts … , the County Court should have directed that the sentence imposed under the indictment run concurrently with the sentences imposed under the SCI. People v Rifino, 2016 NY Slip Op 06513, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCE FOR CONSPIRACY COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY WITH SENTENCES FOR OVERT ACTS WITH WHICH DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CHARGED IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION)/SENTENCING (SENTENCE FOR CONSPIRACY COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY WITH SENTENCES FOR OVERT ACTS WITH WHICH DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CHARGED IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION)

,

STATEMENTS BY SHOOTING VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS DYING DECLARATIONS BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED SPECULATION, NOT FACTS; WHETHER STATEMENTS ARE DYING DECLARATIONS IS NOT A JURY QUESTION.

The First Department, reversing defendants’ convictions, determined statements made by the shooting victim should not have been admitted as dying declarations because the statements reflected speculation, not facts. Whether the statements were admissible as dying declarations was not a question of fact for the jury. The defendants were not present at the shooting. The prosecution was based upon the theory the defendants hired the shooter:

… [W]e reverse the judgments and order a new trial because the court erred in admitting, as dying declarations, the victim’s statements implicating defendants, since they were his “mere expression of belief and suspici[ons]” that defendants were involved in his shooting rather than “statements of facts to which a living witness would have been permitted to testify, if placed upon the stand” … . Although the dying declarant may accuse his or her killer in conclusory language, “[t]he declaration is kept out if the setting of the occasion satisfies the judge, or in reason ought to satisfy him [or her], that the speaker is giving expression to suspicion or conjecture, and not to known facts” … .

… Contrary to the People’s argument, the question of what the victim was referring to when he implicated these defendants was not a proper jury question, nor did the lack of specificity merely go to the weight to be accorded this evidence.

The admission of the statements, which was over defendants’ timely and specific objection, was not harmless. Although some facts that may have led the victim to suspect that defendants were involved in his murder were part of the trial evidence, there was nothing to prevent the jury from speculating that the victim was privy to other information, outside the record, connecting defendants to the crime. We also note that the jury, which issued several deadlock notes during its very lengthy deliberations, twice requested to hear the dying declaration evidence. People v Gumbs, 2016 NY Slip Op 06424, 1st Dept 10-4-16

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENTS BY SHOOTING VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS DYING DECLARATIONS BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED SPECULATION, NOT FACTS; WHETHER STATEMENTS ARE DYING DECLARATIONS IS NOT A JURY QUESTION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS BY SHOOTING VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS DYING DECLARATIONS BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED SPECULATION, NOT FACTS; WHETHER STATEMENTS ARE DYING DECLARATIONS IS NOT A JURY QUESTION)/DYING DECLARATIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, (STATEMENTS BY SHOOTING VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS DYING DECLARATIONS BECAUSE THEY REFLECTED SPECULATION, NOT FACTS; WHETHER STATEMENTS ARE DYING DECLARATIONS IS NOT A JURY QUESTION)

, , ,

HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea), based upon defense counsel’s failure to advise defendant of the possibility of deportation, should not have been denied without a hearing. The decision includes a concise yet complete summary of the federal and state criteria for ineffective assistance and the burdens of proof re: a motion to vacate a conviction by plea. The court noted that credibility questions, here whether defendant’s claim he would have rejected the plea had he known of the risk of deportation, can only be resolved by a hearing:

The issue before us thus turns on whether counsel’s lack of advice on the deportation consequences of defendant’s guilty plea resulted in sufficient prejudice to warrant the withdrawal of his guilty plea. In order to prevail, a defendant must demonstrate a “reasonable probability that, [had counsel properly advised him of the implication of his plea on his immigration status], he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … . … [D]efendant alleges that he would have gone to trial, despite its hazards and the potentially significant incarceration that a conviction would entail, had he been advised he would be deported. Although to have done so would have meant the rejection of “the very beneficial deal” his counsel had negotiated, the motion court erred in finding that defendant’s claim was not “credible,” given the length of time defendant resided legally in the United States, and the other factors raised in his motion papers. Such credibility determinations should be made only after a hearing … . People v Samuels, 2016 NY Slip Op 06423, 1st Dept 10-4-16

CRIMINAL LAW (HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)

,

NO FOUNDATION FOR RECANTATION EVIDENCE COULD BE LAID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIM REFUSED TO TESTIFY; TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED VICTIM’S TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL TO BE ADMITTED WITHOUT EXPLORING WHETHER THE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE STRUCK BECAUSE IT WAS CENTRAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE; TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that allowing the alleged victim’s testimony from the first trial to be read into evidence in the second trial violated the defendant’s right to confrontation. After the first trial, the victim recanted and told defense counsel and the prosecutor someone else committed the offense. At defendant’s second trial, the victim refused to testify, exercising her 5th amendment right to remain silent. Because the victim could not be asked about her recantation, and therefore no foundation for the recantation evidence could be laid, the victim’s testimony from the first trial was deemed admissible. However, under the facts, the victim’s assertion of her 5th amendment rights required the trial judge to explore whether her testimony in the first trial should be struck because her testimony was central to the prosecution’s case. In addition, the Fourth Department determined the trial judge acted vindictively when a greater sentence was imposed after the second trial:

… [The defendant’s] Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the victim exercised her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and refused to answer defense counsel’s questions regarding the recantation of her testimony because the court failed in its duty “[to] explore whether [she] ha[d] essentially refused to testify on questions of matters so closely related to the commission of the crime[s] that [some or all of her] testimony . . . [from the first trial] should be stricken” … . We note, too, that the victim’s testimony is central to the People’s case … and, given that we have previously determined that the evidence against defendant is “less than overwhelming” … , we cannot conclude that the court’s error is harmless … .

We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial on counts one, two and four of the indictment. In the interest of judicial economy, we exercise our power to review as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice defendant’s contention that the court failed to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness when it imposed a greater sentence than was imposed following the first trial … . The People correctly concede that the court failed to identify ” conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding’ ” to justify an increased sentence … , and thus we conclude that the court erred in increasing the sentence after the retrial … . People v Hicks, 2016 NY Slip Op 06334, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NO FOUNDATION FOR RECANTATION EVIDENCE COULD BE LAID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIM REFUSED TO TESTIFY; TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED VICTIM’S TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL TO BE ADMITTED WITHOUT EXPLORING WHETHER THE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE STRUCK BECAUSE IT WAS CENTRAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE; TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO FOUNDATION FOR RECANTATION EVIDENCE COULD BE LAID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIM REFUSED TO TESTIFY; TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED VICTIM’S TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL TO BE ADMITTED WITHOUT EXPLORING WHETHER THE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE STRUCK BECAUSE IT WAS CENTRAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE; TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL)/RECANTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO FOUNDATION FOR RECANTATION EVIDENCE COULD BE LAID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIM REFUSED TO TESTIFY; TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED VICTIM’S TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL TO BE ADMITTED WITHOUT EXPLORING WHETHER THE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE STRUCK BECAUSE IT WAS CENTRAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE; TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL)/SENTENCING (TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL)

,

EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S PERSON BEFORE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; HOWEVER EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.

The Fourth Department determined items seized from defendant’s person at the time he was detained should have been suppressed. However, a subsequent show-up identification, statements, and items found where defendant was initially seized were not fruit of the poisonous tree:

Defendant contends that he was unlawfully arrested prior to the showup identification procedure and that all of the physical evidence, as well as the identification testimony and his statements, must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. We agree with defendant that the items seized from his person should have been suppressed because the police did not have probable cause at that time to arrest him and conduct a search incident to an arrest. We conclude that the police had reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant and detain him for the purpose of the showup identification … . But although the police were permitted at that time to conduct a pat frisk of defendant … , they were not permitted to search him.

We reject defendant’s contention, however, insofar as he asserts that the remaining evidence must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. It is well settled that “only evidence which is the fruit of the poisonous tree’ should be excluded” … . In other words, “only evidence which has been come at by exploitation of that illegality should be suppressed” … . Here, defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that the showup identification of him, his statements to the police, and the items seized in the courtyard, were causally related to his unlawful arrest prior to the showup identification procedure … , i.e., that such evidence was ” obtained by exploitation’ ” of the illegal arrest … . People v Ashford, 2016 NY Slip Op 06365, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S PERSON BEFORE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; HOWEVER EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S PERSON BEFORE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; HOWEVER EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S PERSON BEFORE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; HOWEVER EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE)

,

REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SELECT JUROR, A SELECTION WITH WHICH DEFENSE COUNSEL APPARENTLY DISAGREED.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the selection of a juror by the defendant, a selection with which defense counsel apparently disagreed, deprived defendant of his right to counsel:

“It is well established that a defendant, having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal” … . “The selection of particular jurors falls within the category of tactical decisions entrusted to counsel, and defendants do not retain a personal veto power over counsel’s exercise of professional judgments” … .

Here, during the part of the jury selection process when the attorneys were exercising peremptory challenges, defense counsel stated “[f]or the record, my client is insisting over my objection to keep juror number 21. So, jurors 20 and 21 will be on the jury.” We agree with defendant that, contrary to the People’s contention, defense counsel “never acceded’ or acquies[ed]’ to defendant’s decision” … . … Consequently, the court denied defendant the “expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him,” and “we cannot say that the error here was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” … . People v Mckenzie, 2016 NY Slip Op 06288, 4th Dept 9-30-16

CRIMINAL LAW (REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SELECT JUROR, A SELECTION WITH WHICH DEFENSE COUNSEL APPARENTLY DISAGREED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SELECT JUROR, A SELECTION WITH WHICH DEFENSE COUNSEL APPARENTLY DISAGREED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SELECT JUROR, A SELECTION WITH WHICH DEFENSE COUNSEL APPARENTLY DISAGREED)

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