Repugnant Verdicts
Juries are permitted to deliver stupid verdicts. They can believe the wrong people, accept the ridiculous while rejecting the obviously true. They cannot, however, square a circle. So some verdicts will arguably be repugnant. A verdict is repugnant when it is logically inconsistent, not when it's factually stupid. In other words, a combination of convictions and acquittals will be legally unacceptable when, no matter what evidence the jury might have accepted or rejected, this...
read morePeople v Perkins – Court of Appeals – June 29
The defendant physically resisted appearing in a lineup. Police then took a photograph of his face, telling him it was necessary for a “prisoner movement slip”, and they did the same for the fillers. The complainant picked the defendant from this “lineup”, as he had done from a prior photo array. Because lineup identifications are admissible, and photo arrays are not, the prosecution argued that the defendant improperly denied them useful evidence, and therefore...
read morePeople v King – Court of Appeals – June 29
County court had ruled that police had no basis to stop the defendant, and that it could not be concluded that he stopped voluntarily. County court nonetheless refused to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop. The Court of Appeals reversed and suppressed. All that is surprising is that three judges dissented from this two paragraph opinion. The dissenters objected that, since the defendant and a companion were on separate motorcycles, when police legitimately...
read morePeople v Frederick – on the unspecified powers of the court and consecutive sentences after bench trials
People v Trevor Frederick, decided June 10th, is an odd set of facts. Defendant was found guilty of attempted murder as to his former girlfriend, but the jury hung on felony murder regarding the death of the man she was with. The prosecution obtained a new indictment adding Manslaughter in the first degree. On this basis, the original indictment was dismissed by the court. On motion of the defendant, the court dismissed the new...
read moreRight to Counsel – need for a clear record of prior representation
In People v McClean, decided June 10th, the Court of Appeals held that, while right to counsel deprivations are normally reviewable even in the absence of an objection, the record must be clear that there was a deprivation, so a form of preservation requirement sneaks in through the back door. Here, defendant had spoken to police – in the presence of counsel – about the homicide in question. Three years later, he spoke to...
read moreA Particularized Review of Bill of Particulars
To understand the need for a bill of particulars it helps to first review the history of indictments in New York: In People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y. 2d 589 (1978) the Court of Appeals reviewed the history of the use and purpose of indictments. The right to be prosecuted by indictment is guaranteed by section 6 of article 1 of the NY State Constitution. No particular form is constitutionally mandated. The Court stated in...
read more
