Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendant was found guilty of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and related charges. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. At the second trial, a witness that had been unavailable at the first trial testified for the prosecution. When asked if he was at the scene of the shooting, the witness invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Defendant appealed, arguing that the witness’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege added “critical weight” to the People’s case, that the witness’s testimony deprived him of a fair trial, and that the trial court erred in allowing the People to impeach the witness with his prior inconsistent statements. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the prosecution did not exploit the witness’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege, and therefore, the witness was properly called; (2) the trial court did not err in allowing the People to introduce the witness’s prior statement for the limited purpose of impeaching him; and (3) the trial court did not err in precluding Defendant's identification expert from testifying about the effect of stress on the accuracy of an identification. View "People v. Berry" on Justia Law

After a joint trial, Defendant was found guilty of robbery in the second degree, petit larceny, menacing in the second degree, and possession or use of an imitation pistol or revolver. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting a non-testifying codefendant’s grand jury testimony under Bruton v. United States because the statements were facially incriminating as to Defendant. The Appellate Division agreed with Defendant and reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court’s admission of the codefendant’s statements, which were incriminating as to Defendant in the constitutional sense, was error, and the error was not harmless. View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree gang assault and fourth-degree weapons possession and sentenced to an aggregate term of sixteen years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s redacted statement to law enforcement officers violated Defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because the redacted statement was facially incriminating, the admission of the statement violated Defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause, as discussed in Bruton v. United States, and the error was not harmless. View "People v. Cedeno" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not commit a mode of proceedings error when it allowed prospective jurors to opt out of serving on the jury due to hardship; (2) the trial court did not err in precluding third-party culpability evidence proferred by the defense; and (3) Defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to object to certain inflammatory statements made by the prosecutor during summation. View "People v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant was treated at Hospital for a gunshot wounds. Hospital reported the shooting to the police. By the time Defendant spoke to an officer, Defendant was wearing hospital clothing. The officer subsequently seized the bag containing the clothing that Defendant wore when he came to Hospital. After the officer inspected the garments, authorities came to believe the Defendant had accidentally shot himself with a gun he carried in his waistband. Defendant was charged with, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant sought to suppress the clothes based on the “unlawful warrantless seizure of those items.” Supreme Court denied suppression. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the seizure was illegal and that the items seized were improperly admitted into evidence at trial. View "People v. Sanders" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant, a Chinese immigrant, was found guilty of murder, burglary and attempted robbery. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) his confession to law enforcement officers was an involuntary product of untoward psychological pressure and fatigue, and (2) due to his limited English language proficiency, he did not understand the import of the Miranda warnings given to him, and therefore, he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the totality of the circumstances did not establish that Defendant’s will was so overborne as to make his confession involuntary; and (2) there was record support for the lower courts’ determinations that Defendant understood the import of his Miranda rights. View "People v. Jin Cheng Lin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. Defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by (1) failing to oppose the admission and use of prior consistent statements of the child victim, which bolstered her credibility, and (2) failing to consult or present testimony from a qualified independent medical expert to support his argument that no sexual abuse occurred. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record clearly indicated that Defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective in this case. View "People v. Gross" on Justia Law

In 2002, Plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action civil rights suit against the County of Rensselaer. The County invoked Selective Insurance Company’s duty to provide a defense under the policies that the company sold to the County. Selective agreed to defend the County in the action, subject to the insurance policy limits and the deductible. Selective’s counsel and the County agreed to settle the actions for $1,000 per plaintiff, determined to be slightly more than 800 individuals in total, with attorney fees also being recoverable. Selective abided by the terms of the settlement. The County, however, refused to pay Selective more than a single deductible payment. Selective then commenced this action for money damages, arguing that each class member was subject to a separate deductible. Supreme Court concluded that a separate deductible payment applied to each class member and that all legal fees should be allocated to one policy. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the class action suit did not constitute one occurrence under the relevant policies’ definition of “occurrence” and that the attorney’s fees generated in defending that suit were properly allocated to the named plaintiff. View "Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. County of Rensselaer" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the People improperly used his silence, in the immediate aftermath of his arrest, against him in violation of his constitutional rights and that he was denied a fair trial due to defense counsel’s ineffectiveness. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the People’s use of Defendant’s silence constituted a violation of his state constitutional rights, but the error was harmless; and (2) Defendant failed to establish that his attorney failed to provide meaningful representation that compromised his right to a fair trial. View "People v. Pavone" on Justia Law

The two defendants in these cases accepted pleas to criminal offenses. Defendants later petitioned for writs of error coram nobis, each alleging that counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to advise Defendants of their right to appeal. Defendants also alleged had they known about their right to appeal, they would have requested one. In each case, the Appellate Division denied the defendant’s writ of error coram nobis. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under the circumstances of these two cases, Defendants failed to meet their burden on their coram nobis applications, as the records as a whole revealed that Defendants knew about their right to appeal. View "People v. Rosario" on Justia Law