SHACKLES – New York Appellate Digest

Criteria for Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury Explained (Not Met Here)

CurlyHost — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:00:00 +0000

The Third Department explained the prosecutor’s obligations re: the presentation of exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. [The decision also includes good discussions the criteria re: (1) shackling defendant during pre-trial hearings, (2) the court’s discretion to deny defendant’s request to call a witness (the victim) at the Wade hearing, and (3) serious prosecutorial misconduct, which are worth reading, although reversible error was not found.]:

With respect to the issue of exculpatory evidence, “[t]he People generally enjoy wide discretion in presenting their case to the [g]rand [j]ury and are not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in their possession that is favorable to the accused even though such information undeniably would allow the [g]rand [j]ury to make a more informed determination. . . . [Nor] do the People have the same obligation of disclosure at the [g]rand [j]ury stage as they have at the trial stage” … . Here, the exculpatory evidence cited by defendant “bore principally upon the victim’s credibility and, as such, was more appropriately reserved for presentation to the petit jury than to the [g]rand [j]ury” … . People v Goldston, 2015 NY Slip Op 02146, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

Even In a Nonjury Trial, a Defendant Should Not Be In Shackles Unless Reasons Are Placed on the Record

CurlyHost — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 04:00:00 +0000

The Third Department found the error harmless, but it noted that, even in a nonjury trial, the defendant should not be in shackles in the courtroom unless reasons for the restraint are put on the record:

Even in a nonjury trial, a defendant should not remain restrained in the courtroom unless the trial court sets forth particularized reasons for such restraint on the record … . People v Whitehead, 2014 NY Slip Op 05213, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

Taser or Stun Gun Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument” for Purposes of Burglary and Menacing Statutes; Court Must Articulate Specific Reasons for Shackling Defendant During Trial

Bruce Freeman — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:56:19 +0000

Proof that the defendant threatened the complainant with a taser or stun gun was legally insufficient to establish the “dangerous instrument” element of burglary in the first degree and menacing in the second degree. Although the Second Department determined it was harmless error, the Court also noted that it was error to shackle the defendant and put black bunting around the defense table, without also putting black bunting around the prosecution table. The jury, in that circumstance, may have inferred the bunting was designed to hide shackles. “The federal constitution ‘forbids the use of visible shackles … unless that use is justified by an essential state interest … specific to the defendant on trial’ …”. County Court, in this instance, failed to articulate on the record an adequate justification individualized to the defendant for the shackling … . People v Morillo, 2013 NY Slip Op 01572, 2010-11438, Ind No 2052/09, 2nd Dept. 5-13-13