Court of Appeals for New York, Albany. (Courtesy photo)

The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday ordered a new trial for a Brooklyn man currently serving an 11-year prison sentence on an assault conviction after prosecutors failed to provide his attorneys with contact information for witnesses that may have exonerated him.

In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that prosecutors incorrectly chose not to hand over contact information for at least one witness that could have helped his defense.

"These accounts, if true, would have directly contradicted the People's theory of the case, and therefore access to the witnesses who made them was clearly favorable to the defense," the decision said.

Representatives for the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted the case, were not immediately available to comment on the decision Thursday morning.

The defendant, named Rong He, was convicted on charges of second-degree assault and fourth-degree possession of a weapon in 2013 after he was accused of slashing and stabbing two men on the floor of a Brooklyn nightclub two years earlier.

Months later, he was arrested when one of the victims recognized him, followed him home, and called the police. He told police, in a statement after the arrest, that he slashed the two men, but claimed they attacked him first and that he was acting in self-defense.

He's attorney at the time moved to suppress that statement but the request was denied by the trial court judge. The judge did find, however, that his arrest in the hallway outside his apartment was unlawful.

Despite that finding, the judge said the unlawful arrest did not require his statement to police to be set aside. He was convicted during a jury trial.

On appeal, He continued to argue that his initial statement should be thrown out based on his unlawful arrest, but he also claimed prosecutors had unlawfully failed to disclose to his attorneys contact information of witnesses that could have been used to support his defense.

He brought the challenge under the rules of Brady v. Maryland, which generally requires prosecutors to turn over evidence to the defense that could be considered exculpatory or favorable to the defendant.

In this case, the Court of Appeals said in its decision Thursday that prosecutors violated Brady when they chose not to give He's attorneys contact information for the owner of the nightclub where the alleged assault occurred and of someone who called 911.

He was represented before the Court of Appeals by Paul Skip Laisure, the attorney-in-charge of Appellate Advocates, which provides appellate representation to low-income defendants. Laisure said the decision was consistent with other rulings from the high court.

"The Court of Appeals has recognized, and it's repeatedly recognized in a number of cases, the importance of disclosing exculpatory information to the defense in a way they can meaningfully use it," Laisure said.

The nightclub owner, according to the decision, had told police on the night of the alleged assault that he saw two people approach someone and strike that person with a beer bottle, and even identified one of the assailants as someone other than He.

Prosecutors also chose not to disclose the contact information of a witness who called 911 on the night of the alleged assault. That caller, according to the decision, "arguably corroborated" the nightclub owner's account.

Instead, prosecutors decided to provide those witnesses with the contact information of He's defense attorney, rather than give He direct access to them. That wasn't enough to help He's defense, the Court of Appeals wrote.

"Under the circumstances of this case, the People's refusal to disclose the contact information, or to provide any means for defense counsel to contact the witnesses other than through the prosecution itself, is tantamount to suppression of the requested information," the court wrote.

Statements made by both the nightclub owner and the 911 caller would have "directly contradicted" the prosecution's theory that He was the sole perpetrator in the case, the Court of Appeals wrote in the decision.

Because of that, the court wrote, it's possible that He could have avoided his conviction six years ago if prosecutors had provided his attorney with that information.

"Given the substance of the nightclub owner's statements and the nature of the People's case, we cannot say—under our less demanding standard—that there was no 'reasonable possibility' that the defense's investigation of the witnesses would not have affected the outcome of defendant's trial," the court wrote.

On the question of whether He's initial statement to police should have been suppressed at trial, the court said that was "a mixed question of law and fact." The court said it was beyond its power to review that conflict.

READ MORE:

NY High Court Eyes Doctors' Right to Sue Over Bad Faith Reports of Medical Misconduct

'Mailbox Fishing' Defendant Should Face Lesser Charge Based on Intent, Attorney Argues Before High Court

Court of Appeals Weighs Liability for Out-of-Possession Landlords in Sidewalk Injury Claims

NY High Court to Decide Future of One-Mile Stretch of Road in Adirondacks

NY State's Tree Cutting for Trails in Adirondacks Is Unconstitutional, Appellate Court Rules