Court of Appeals Grants Defendant New Trial in Criminal Case After Closing Remarks Barred
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.
June 26, 2018 at 02:15 PM
3 minute read
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.
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.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 4Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al.
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