Photo Credit: bikeriderlondon/Shutterstock.com A Brooklyn man will get a new trial on misdemeanor drug charges after the Court of Appeals found a lower court violated his Sixth Amendment right to be heard at trial. The court unanimously agreed in a reversal from the Appellate Term that a trial court should not have denied William Harris' attorney the opportunity to give closing remarks at his trial in 2013. Harris was arrested at his apartment in Brooklyn after a fight with his girlfriend that year. Police found drug paraphernalia in his pockets during the arrest. Harris was subsequently charged with attempted assault, menacing, harassment, and criminal possession of a controlled substance. Of those charges, he was only convicted of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, according to the Appellate Term. The trial court said at the end of his trial that it would exercise its “prerogative” to skip closing arguments, the Court of Appeals said. The judge then immediately delivered the verdict. That was after the court said attorneys would be allowed to close the day before, an attorney for Harris argued before the court earlier this month. “The trial court in this case committed presumptively prejudicial error requiring reversal when, on the last day of trial, contrary to its explicit statement on the second-to-last day of trial, it completely denied Mr. Harris' Sixth Amendment right to a summation,” said Daniel Schumeister, an attorney with Kramer Levin in Manhattan who represented Harris. The Court of Appeals said the U.S. Supreme Court has previously held that giving trial courts discretion on closing arguments for defense counsel violates the Sixth Amendment, particularly when jail time is involved. “In this single judge trial on a class B misdemeanor, the trial court's imposition of a sentence of 90 days in jail required that defendant be afforded the right to counsel at the trial under the Sixth Amendment,” the Court of Appeals wrote. Brooklyn Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Visgaitis argued before the court this month that Harris was given the opportunity to object when the trial court judge denied closing arguments, but did not. The court disagreed with that point Tuesday, writing that when a verdict was given immediately after the judge waived closing remarks “the court deprived defense counsel of a practical ability to timely and meaningfully object to the court's ruling of law.” Schumeister did not offer comment on the decision when reached by phone Tuesday. The Brooklyn District Attorney's Office did not immediately offer comment.