Decisions in the 2016-2017 Term Overwhelmingly Favored Prosecutors
Paul Shechtman, a partner at Bracewell, writes: The 2016-2017 term of the New York Court of Appeals in criminal law was a relatively quiet one in which the prosecution fared better than the defense.
August 21, 2017 at 02:00 PM
39 minute read
The 2016-2017 term of the New York Court of Appeals in criminal law was a relatively quiet one in which the prosecution fared better than the defense.
'Brown'
In People v. Brown, 28 N.Y.3d 392 (2016), the Court decided a question that went unresolved two years ago in People v. Sibblies, 22 N.Y.3d 1174 (2014): If the People answer “ready” for trial off calendar and then are “not ready” at the next court appearance, do they bear the burden of showing that the statement of readiness was not illusory and therefore effective in stopping the speedy trial clock? The Brown majority held that a statement of readiness is “presumed … accurate and … a defendant who challenges such a statement must demonstrate that it is illusory.” The burden is on the defense. Writing separately, Judge Jenny Rivera disagreed, claiming that the majority's holding “turn[ed] the [§30.30] statute on its head.” She argued that the People should be charged with the time between the two statements “absent an explanation of how th[e] lapse in status [was] due to some exceptional fact or circumstance.”
Brown is the most significant speedy-trial decision in recent years. Had Judge Rivera's position prevailed, §30.30 dismissals would have increased, perhaps greatly. Take this example: Assume (1) the People answer ready off calendar today, and the case is next on in 30 days and (2) the People are not ready on the court date because the assigned ADA is on trial. The ADA's unavailability is not an “exceptional circumstance,” but nor is it reason to conclude that the off-calendar statement was a sham. Judge Rivera is correct, however, that the §30.30 statute often does more to encourage gamesmanship than speedy trials.
'Price'
People v. Price, 2017 N.Y. Slip. Op 05174 presented the Court its first opportunity to consider the authentication of Internet evidence, and the Court chose “to proceed with caution in a new and unsettled area of law.” Price was indicted for a gunpoint robbery of a milk delivery man. At trial, the People offered a “photograph that was found on the Internet,” which purportedly “depicted [Price] holding a handgun”—one that the victim testified looked “similar” to the gun used in the robbery. A detective testified that she found the photograph on the website “BlackPlanet.com” under a “public profile” with the user name “Price_OneofKind.” It was posted several months before the robbery. The individual in it, the detective testified, “looked similar” to Price.
That was all of the evidence linking Price to the site and the photograph. There was no reference to Price's full name on the profile page. Nor was any pedigree information offered to connect him to the page. And the detective could not say that the photograph was unaltered. On this record, the Court “assum[ed] without deciding” that a photograph could be authenticated by proof (1) that the website was “attributable to and controlled by the defendant” and (2) that the photograph was an accurate depiction of the page. Here, however, the authentication evidence was too “sparse” to meet that standard.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLuigi Mangione Indicted on Charges Including First-Degree Murder in Shooting of Health Insurance CEO
In 'Kousisis,' the DOJ Once Again Pushes the Limits of Federal Fraud Prosecutions
10 minute readBen Brafman's Professional Legacy After 50 Years? Himself
Top Real Estate Broker Brothers Facing Federal Sex Crimes Charges
Trending Stories
- 1Increased Costs Proved a Drag on Profits for PA's AmLaw 200 in 2024
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-81
- 3Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 4'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 5FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250