Shortly after noon on November 21, 1996, the bodies of 79 year-old Archie Harris and 35 year-old Betty Ramcharan were discovered inside of Harris’ Eastchester home. Harris had been beaten, bludgeoned and stabbed to death, while Ramcharan had been strangled and suffocated and her throat had been slit. A bloody kitchen knife was found lying near Ramcharan. More than five years later, on February 16, 2001, the defendant, Selwyn Days, was arrested in connection with these homicides and more than seven years later, on April 16, 2004, following a second jury trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree, Penal Law §125.25, for the intentional homicide of both Mr. Harris and Ms. Ramcharan. He was thereafter sentenced to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life imprisonment.
Three years later, by order to show cause filed on August 17, 2007, the defendant moved, through counsel, for an order pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §440.10(1)(h), vacating the judgment on the ground that it was obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, §6 of the New York State Constitution, to due process and the effective assistance of counsel. On October 17, 2007, the People filed an affirmation in opposition to which the defendant filed a reply dated January 3, 2008. On January 31, 2008, the People filed a sur-reply. Thereafter, by notice of motion dated June 25, 2008, the defendant supplemented his initial application and moved for an order vacating the judgment and dismissing the indictment on the ground that he is actually innocent of the crimes of which he was convicted pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §440.10(1)(h), Judiciary Law §2(b)(3), as well as the Federal and State Constitutions. On August 22, 2008, the People submitted a memorandum of law in which they opposed the defendant’s motion and on September 23, 2008, the defendant filed a reply. Lastly, on February 25, 2009, the defendant moved for an order pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §440.10(1)(g), vacating the judgment on the ground that new evidence—recent DNA test results—has been discovered since the entry of judgment which the defendant could not have produced at the earlier trial even with due diligence on his part and is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at trial the verdict would have been more favorable to him. The People submitted an affirmation in opposition on March 16, 2009, to which the defendant filed a reply on March 20, 2009.
