You are here: / 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.

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)

NO RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE TRIAL JUDGE READ THE NOTES FROM THE JURY TO THE PARTIES VERBATIM PRIOR TO DISCUSSING RESPONSES; THAT WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversed defendant’s conviction because there was no record that the trial judge read the notes from the jury to the parties verbatim prior to discussing the appropriate responses:

“Where a trial transcript does not show compliance with O’Rama’s procedure as required by law, we cannot assume that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference that the transcript does not refer to” … . Here, the court’s response to the jury regarding the fourth note does include a limited reference to how the “parties” wished to respond to the jury’s request, suggesting that an off-the-record conference may have occurred with respect to the fourth note. Even assuming, without deciding, that this reference would suffice to remedy the O’Rama violation with respect to the fourth note, there is no such reference to the parties’ agreement in the trial court’s response to the jury regarding the fifth note. Therefore, the court’s handling of the fifth note constitutes a clear departure from the O’Rama procedure and a mode of proceedings error for which preservation is not required … . People v Robinson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06266, 1st Dept 9-29-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY NOTES, NO RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE TRIAL JUDGE READ THE NOTES FROM THE JURY TO THE PARTIES VERBATIM PRIOR TO DISCUSSING RESPONSES; THAT WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION)/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, NO RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE TRIAL JUDGE READ THE NOTES FROM THE JURY TO THE PARTIES VERBATIM PRIOR TO DISCUSSING RESPONSES; THAT WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION)/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (JURY NOTES, NO RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE TRIAL JUDGE READ THE NOTES FROM THE JURY TO THE PARTIES VERBATIM PRIOR TO DISCUSSING RESPONSES; THAT WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION)

A VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY OF GRAND LARCENY BUT NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REPUGNANT; INSTRUCTING THE JURY OTHERWISE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.

The First Department determined the jury was erroneously instructed they could not find the defendant guilty of grand larceny but not guilty of possession of stolen property. A new trial was ordered. The court explained the analytical criteria for a repugnant verdict:

The repugnancy test is “essentially a variant of the theoretical impossibility’ test that is applied in the realm of lesser included offenses” … . Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence as to both submitted counts in this case, and notwithstanding the practical remoteness of the possibility that a person who commits grand larceny will not also be guilty of criminal possession of the property he or she steals, our examination of the elements of the two crimes persuades us that it is theoretically possible for a person to possess the mental state required for guilt of grand larceny in the third degree, and at the same time lack the mental state necessary for guilt of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. Accordingly, the mixed verdict contemplated in the challenged instruction would not have been a repugnant verdict, and the court therefore erred in instructing the jury that it was “not a legally permissible verdict.” People v Simmons, 2016 NY Slip Op 06175, 1st Dept 9-28-16

CRIMINAL LAW (A VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY OF GRAND LARCENY BUT NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REPUGNANT; INSTRUCTING THE JURY OTHERWISE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/REPUGNANT VERDICT (CRIMINAL LAW, A VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY OF GRAND LARCENY BUT NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REPUGNANT)

, ,

IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a two-justice dissent, determined the First Department’s prior ruling that a search warrant was invalid was the law of the case. The trial court had ruled new evidence demonstrated the validity of the warrant and granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants (the city and police officers who procured and executed the search warrant). The plaintiffs, who had been pushed to the floor at gunpoint, handcuffed, and held for three hours while their apartment was searched (and trashed), sued alleging the violation of their civil rights:

This case gives us the opportunity to emphasize that when an issue is specifically decided on a motion for summary judgment, that determination is the law of the case. As such, the trial court, as well as the parties, are bound by it “absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law” … . Applying this rule to the case at hand, we specifically found in Delgado v City of New York (86 AD3d 502, 508 [1st Dept 2011] [Delgado I]), that the no-knock search warrant at issue was not valid. Thus, the trial court was bound by that determination absent the introduction of subsequent evidence to show otherwise. The evidence that was introduced at trial on the validity of the warrant, however, was not significantly different from what was previously before the court on the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the trial court erred in deeming the warrant valid and granting defendants’ motion for a directed verdict in their favor. * * *

Whether this Court’s conclusion regarding the validity of the search warrant in Delgado I was erroneously reached is irrelevant. The law of the case precluded the trial court from re-examining the issue (see Carmona, 92 AD3d at 492-493), and it was therefore bound by our conclusion regardless of its views on our analysis … .

At the very least, the issue as to the validity of the search warrant should have gone before the jury since the additional evidence adduced at trial did not significantly alter our analysis. Instead, acting essentially as an appellate court, the trial court effectively reversed this Court’s finding on the validity of the warrant. Delgado v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06185, 1st Dept 9-27-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED)/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED)/CRIMINAL LAW ((IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED)/LAW OF THE CASE (IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED)

,

PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL.

The Second Department determined pro se defendant was not deprived of his right to counsel when his request for standby counsel was denied. A defendant has no constitutional right to so-called “hybrid” representation:

The defendant contends that he was denied his right to proceed pro se. At the beginning of pretrial proceedings, however, the defendant sought standby counsel to assist in his self-representation. “A criminal defendant has no Federal or State constitutional right to hybrid representation. While the Sixth Amendment and the State Constitution afford a defendant the right to counsel or to self-representation, they do not guarantee a right to both . . . [, and] a defendant who elects to exercise the right to self-representation is not guaranteed the assistance of standby counsel during trial” … . However, “[b]ecause a defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation, the decision to allow such representation lies within the sound discretion of the trial court” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for hybrid representation. People v Neree, 2016 NY Slip Op 06006, 2nd Dept 9-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL)/HYBRID REPRESENTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL)/STANDBY COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, PRO SE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO STANDBY COUNSEL)

MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING DESPITE WITNESS RECANTATIONS AND CONFESSION BY ANOTHER PARTY, CRITERIA FOR SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE EXPLAINED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, based primarily upon newly discovered evidence, was properly denied without a hearing. Although two identification witnesses recanted, the recantations were suspect and there were other eyewitnesses. A confession to the crime by another was refuted by documentary evidence. With respect to the criteria for a showing of “actual innocence,” the court explained:

To vacate a judgment based on actual innocence pursuant to CPL 440.10(h), defendant must demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence, which was not presented at trial, his factual innocence, i.e. that he was actually innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted … . To be sufficient, clear and convincing evidence must establish that the claim asserted is “highly probable.” “Mere doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or a preponderance of conflicting evidence as to the defendant’s guilt, is insufficient, since a convicted defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and in fact is presumed to be guilty”… .

“A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the court” … . As recently explained by this Court … , which agreed with the [2nd] Department that CPL 440.10(h) embraces a claim of actual innocence, “[T]his specific standard for actual innocence claims should be considered in light of, and alongside, the more general standard applicable on any motion to vacate a conviction brought under CPL 440.10. Thus, statements of fact supporting the motion must be sworn … . Further, hearsay statements in support of such motions are not probative evidence … .” People v Velazquez, 2016 NY Slip Op 05961, 1st Dept 9-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING DESPITE WITNESS RECANTATIONS AND CONFESSION BY ANOTHER PARTY, CRITERIA FOR SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE EXPLAINED)/VACATE CONVICTION,  MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING DESPITE WITNESS RECANTATIONS AND CONFESSION BY ANOTHER PARTY, CRITERIA FOR SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE EXPLAINED)/ACTUAL INNOCENCE (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING DESPITE WITNESS RECANTATIONS AND CONFESSION BY ANOTHER PARTY, CRITERIA FOR SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE EXPLAINED)

,

NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME.

The Second Department reversed defendant’s drug conspiracy conviction. Although there was proof a person with defendant’s name was part of the conspiracy, there was no proof defendant was that person:

We find that defendant Mohammed’s conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. In determining whether the jury’s verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence, the reviewing court must decide “whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial, and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged” … , including the identity of the defendant who committed the crime charged … . While there was sufficient evidence to show that a person by the name of Habiyb Mohammed took part in the conspiracy, the record is devoid of any identification of defendant Mohammed to be that same Habiyb Mohammed. People v Brown, 2016 NY Slip Op 05940, 1st Dept 9-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME)

,

UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS, THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A MESSENGER BAG AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTIONS REVERSED.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined, under state constitutional standards, the warrantless search of a messenger bag on defendant’s person at the time of his arrest was not justified by exigent circumstances. The court also noted that the prosecutor’s characterizing the defense as “beyond absurd” and comments upon defendant’s pre-arrest silence were improper:

Here, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant’s messenger bag was lawfully searched incident to his arrest for burglary. However, the proof adduced at the suppression hearing failed to establish the presence of exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search. Initially, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of exigent circumstances relating to the safety of the public and the arresting officer … . Although the police officer who testified at the suppression hearing stated that he had responded to the scene after receiving a report of an individual climbing into a building through a rear window, there was no indication that the individual was armed … . Nor did the officer testify as to any circumstances indicating the presence of a weapon … . Furthermore, the police officer did not express any concerns about his own safety, or the safety of the public, and the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest did not serve to establish an objectively reasonable inference of police apprehension. People v Anderson, 2016 NY Slip Op 05927, 2nd Dept 8-31-16

CRIMINAL LAW (UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS, THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A MESSENGER BAG AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS, THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A MESSENGER BAG AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS, THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A MESSENGER BAG AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (CRIMINAL LAW, UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS, THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A MESSENGER BAG AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTIONS REVERSED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S INFLAMMATORY REMARKS AND REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT’S PRE-ARREST SILENCE IMPROPER)

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