Prosecutorial Misconduct
by Jill Paperno, Second Assistant Monroe County Public Defender In a number of recent cases, courts have addressed examples of prosecutorial misconduct. Set forth below is some of the conduct which has been condemned. Remember – if you don’t object, the misconduct is not going to be preserved for appellate review. Even during summation. (You might want to prep your jury for the fact you’ll be objecting, even during summation, and ask them if...
read moreNew Blog Worth Reading: Hiscock Legal Aid Society Appeals Program Blog
A new useful addition to criminal law blogs in New York is the Hiscock Legal Aid Society Appeals Program Blog which provides both detailed statistics and case summaries for Appellate Division, Fourth Department...
read moreWhat Should Asssigned Appellate Counsel Do When the Only Issues Risk Worse Outcomes for the Client?
Assigned appellate counsel, who upon a review of the record conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues, may move to be relieved of the assignment (People v Crawford, 71 AD2d 38). As I asked in a post in 2008, what do you do when the only non-frivolous issue is one that could hurt your client? For example, what if the sentence imposed was unlawfully short? Does an attorney have to file a brief challenging...
read moreBrady v Maryland – Outline of leading cases applying Brady rule
BRADY OUTLINE (March 23, 2011) by Jill Paperno, Special Assistant Monroe County Public Defender BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U.S.83 – Turnover of information is a requirement of 14th Amendment due process “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” nb...
read moreImportant Decision on 30.30 Motions and Preservation of Claim
byDrew R. DuBrin, Special Assistant Monroe County Public Defender The Court of Appeals has just decided an important decision on what a defendant must do to preserve his claim that a period of unreadiness is not excludable from the 30.30 calculation. As you know, in moving to dismiss on CPL 30.30 grounds, the defendant bears the burden of alleging in her motion papers a period of excessive pre-readiness and/or post-readiness delay . If the...
read more
