False Confessions Discussed on the Oprah Winfrey Show

Yesterday, Oprah Winfrey did an entire one hour show on the subject of false confessions. An article describing one of the false confessions can be found here. The website contains other information and interviews relevant to the topic, including video of a police interrogation of the then-14 year old Michael Crowe, a boy falsely accused of stabbing his 12-year-old sister. Part 1 of Oprah's interview with a young man who falsely confessed to killing his parents can be found here.

More Coverage of Judge's Approval of Taser Use to Procure DNA Sample

The Simple Justice Blog has a copy of Judge Sperrazza's decision in the DNA/Taser case.

Plus, the Niagara Gazette has further coverage of the Niagara County Judge's ruling which permitted the police to use a taser to compel a defendant to give a DNA sample.

Supreme Court Decides that Due Process Requires Recusal in Muli-Million Dollar Campaign Donation Case

Back in March, the Indignant Indigent wrote about a case coming up before the Supreme Court in which the justices would be faced with the question of whether a judge who had received a multi-million dollar campaign contribution from a litigant should recuse himself from a case brought by that litigant/donor. Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided the case and, in a 5-4 decision, determined that due process requires recusal given all the circumstances of the case.

SCOTUSblog wrote an excellent summary of the decision that is available here.

Failure to Move Against Search Warrant Not Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In People v. Rockel Francis, the defendant was charged with the A-II felony Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree. The government's whole case, of course, was the drugs in Mr. Francis' possession. On appeal, the defendant argued that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to challenge the search warrant permitting a search of his residence. The Fourth Department concluded that the search warrant described an ongoing drug operation, thus establishing the validity of the warrant. The court stated:

"There can be no denial of effective assistance of . . . counsel arising from [defense] counsel's failure to make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152, quoting People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287, rearg denied 3 NY3d 702)".

The opinion does not state three facts critical to the determination of whether a suppression motion would have been successful. What is present and undisputed in the defedant and government briefs to the court, is that the "ongoing drug operation" (a) was only known to be 17 days old, (b) the confidential informant (himself charged with cocaine possession and facing up to 25 years in jail) had only successfully bought cocaine from the location once, and (c) the day before the warrant was signed, the alleged dealer had told the informant that he did not have any cocaine and was therefore unable to complete a sale.

Speeding Driver Acted With Depraved Indifference

In People v. Michael Prindle, the defendant was driving his car at a high rate of speed (unspecified in the decision) on city streets and often drove in the opposing lane of traffic in an attempt to escape police pursuit. He was convicted of depraved indifference murder when his car struck another and killed an occupant. The Fourth Department determined that there was sufficient evidence of depraved indifference murder and affirmed the conviction. In so holding, the court said:

"Here, the evidence presented at trial established that, while attempting to escape from the police, defendant drove a van at a high rate of speed on city streets on a weekend afternoon, often traveling in the opposing lane of traffic. We thus conclude that the evidence establishes that defendant acted with depraved indifference, i.e., "a wanton indifference to human life or depravity of mind" (People v Gomez, 65 NY2d 9, 11; see People v Gonzalez, 288 AD2d 321, lv denied 97 NY2d 754; People v Williams, 184 AD2d 437, lv denied 80 NY2d 935)."

There are two interesting elements to this decision. First, the decision does not state whether Mr. Prindle killed the victim while driving in the opposing lane of traffic. Generally, just driving in the opposing lane of traffic does not evince unusual brutality, wickedness, or evil, mostly because it appears Mr. Prindle was hoping to avoid oncoming traffic and escape the police. Moreover, if he did not kill the victim while doing so, there is no causal link between the action and the result. A second, interrelated, point of interest is that the Fourth Department did not cite to Feingold or Jean-Baptiste in support of its conclusion that the defendant acted with depravity. Of course, since Register was overruled, depravity is no longer a factual circumstance (i.e. driving in the opposing lane of traffic), but rather it is a mental state. The court did not analyze how Mr. Prindle's actions evinced unusual brutality, wickedness, or evil in light of Mr. Prindle's obvious goal of evading the police. This quote from Suarez, is instructive on that point:

"Reckless homicide cannot be elevated into depraved indifference murder merely because the actions of the defendant created a risk of death, however grave or substantial that risk may have been. Otherwise, manslaughter in the second degree would routinely and automatically become depraved indifference murder inasmuch as the victim (who was, after all, killed) was necessarily exposed to a grave or substantial risk of death. The critical statutory language that separates second-degree manslaughter from depraved indifference murder is the defendant’s underlying depraved indifference. Circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life are not established by recklessness coupled only with actions that carry even an inevitable risk of death. "

(People v. Suarez, 6 NY3d 202, 213-214 [italics in original).

Taser Use Approved to Procure DNA Sample

The Buffalo News reports that Niagara County Court Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza ruled this week that it is permissible for the police to use a taser (administering a 50,000 volt electric shock) to procure a DNA sample from a suspect.

The court first ordered the defendant to provide an oral swab, which the defendant voluntarily agreed to do. However, the government sent the DNA sample to the wrong lab for analysis, and the sample was spoiled as a result. The government then gained a ex parte order for a second oral swab and sought the defendant's compliance in gaining the second DNA sample. When the defendant refused to comply at the jail, the police handcuffed the suspect, placed him on the ground, and administered the 50,000 volt shock. After he was Tasered and agreed to the give the sample, the police charged him with contempt of court for his refusal to comply with a lawful court order.

The judge refused to suppress the DNA sample and ruled that the police used a reasonable amount of force to carry out a lawful court order.

The Indignant Indigent will provide further updates on this case as it winds its way through the courts.

New York Times Coverage of Forensic Sciences

This week, The New York Times is running a series of articles regarding the ability of certain forensic sciences to make accurate conclusions. The Indignant Indigent has written in the past about two forensic sciences that are very important to criminal investigations, but often produce faulty or skewed results.

First, the Indignant Indigent has reported on the growing tide of skepticism regarding the field of firearm and toolmark identification. The New York Times covers the subject here. The article includes remarks from various scientists who conclude that firearm and toolmark examination has not been properly supported by independent scientific research and who further conclude that the field is lacking in statistical support for its most basic claims.

Second, the Indignant Indigent has reported on the various techniques used by law enforcement to extract confessions from criminal suspects (commonly known as the "Reid Technique"). The New York Times reports on new studies which call into question some of the Reid Techniques' basic assumptions. The article is available here.

The articles also contain an internet podcast of a discussion between experts in various forensic sciences.

Court of Appeals Refuses to Vacate Sentence After Catu Violation

In People v. Paul Boyd, the defendant pleaded guilty and only afterward was informed that post-release supervision ["PRS"] was "mandatory". Mr. Boyd was not informed of the required length of the PRS. Later, at sentencing, the judge altogether forgot to impose PRS. On appeal, the defendant sought to withdraw his plea under People v. Catu and People v. Louree.

One might expect an immediate reversal since this case appears to squarely fit within Catu's and Louree's framework. However, if anyone thought that, he would be wrong. In Boyd, the court analyzed the potential impact of Sparber and Garner on future Catu claims, questioned whether Penal Law § 70.85 was constitutional, and ultimately denied the requested relief, ordering the case for return to Supreme Court for litigation of the 70.85. The court said:

"This corrective action [vacatur of the plea] should not be entertained at this time because the constitutionality of this new provision and its applicability to this case have not been sufficiently developed for our review. Although a dissenting colleague believes that Penal Law § 70.85 is unconstitutional as applied to this case (see Pigott, J., dissenting op at 4), we recognize that the issue of whether the deficiency in the plea allocution can be rectified by granting defendant specific performance of the plea agreement—a determinate sentence without imposing a term of PRS—should be determined by Supreme Court in the first instance"

This is an interesting outcome given the fact that Catu is less than five years old and given the fact that the defendant never requested any relief under Sparber (i.e. re-sentencing). The court did not overrule Catu, but it clearly refused to apply the case when faced nearly identical circumstances. Judge Pigott recognized this anomaly in dissent and stated:

"our holdings in Catu and Van Deusen and more recently in Hill make clear that a defendant is entitled to vacatur of his plea when the court commits a Catu error. Although I dissented in Hill, we are bound by this recent precedent. "

Penal Law 70.85, designed to permit re-sentencing of almost every PRS mis-step, has thrown a monkey-wrench into the Court of Appeals' jurisprudence. Specifically, troublesome to the court is that portion of the statute which permits the court to impose a sentence that does not include PRS if the district attorney supports such a result. The court recognized that ultimately, the defendant's sentence could be one that does not include PRS, assuming the government agreed (as it appeared likely to do). Although neither the defendant nor the government sought re-setencing under this provision (or for any other reason), the court reversed and remanded "to give the People the opportunity to litigate their argument regarding the applicability of Penal Law § 70.85 and for defendant to assert any constitutional challenges to the operation of the statute".

It seems safe to say that the Court of Appeals is willing to hear constitutional challenges to the statute. Any takers?

Sentence Vacated For Failure to Conduct Outley Hearing

In People v. Daniel Davis, the defendant pleaded guilty and was given the standard warning that if he was re-arrested before his return for sentencing, his sentencing promise of probation would disappear in favor of a possible one year term of incarceration. Sure enough, the defendant was re-arrested before sentencing. The court imposed the one year sentence and refused defense counsel's request to "controvert the legality or reasonableness of the arrest". The Fourth Department vacated the sentence and returned the matter for an Outley hearing by stating in relevant part:

"Where, as here, 'an issue is raised concerning the validity of the post-plea charge or there is a denial of any involvement in the underlying crime, the court must conduct an inquiry at which the defendant has an opportunity to show that the arrest is without foundation' (Outley, 80 NY2d at 713). The mere fact that defendant was arrested, without more, is insufficient to justify an enhanced sentence based on a post-plea arrest (id.)"

Single Instance of Ineffectiveness Results in Reversal

A single instance of ineffectiveness on the part of trial counsel will result in reversal in only a limited number of circumstances. Defining what type of single error should result in reversal is an issue that appears to be still unresolved. For example, in People v. Turner (5 NY3d 476 [2005]), one of the more recent treatments of the subject, the Court of Appeals held that an attorney's failure to raise a valid statute of limitations defense constituted a single egregious instance of ineffectiveness. By contrast, in People v. Hobot (84 NY 2d 1020 [1995]), the court ruled that defense counsel’s single error in failing to review a medical document important to the impeachment of a prosecution witness did not rise to the level of a single instance of ineffectiveness required for reversal (see also, People v. Flores, 84 NY 2d 184 [1994]). After Turner, it remains unclear whether mathematical certainty of success is required to win on the "single egregious error" theory of ineffectiveness or whether some lesser quantum of likely success is required.

Although Turner would seem to suggest that mathematical certainty of success is required, the Fourth Department's decision in People v. Spartacus Brown suggests otherwise. In Brown, the Fourth Department reversed for a single instance of ineffectiveness when, in a prosecution for sexual abuse in the first degree, "defense counsel[] fail[ed] to object to the admission in evidence of the victim's medical records, which contained information concerning prior allegations of sexual abuse against defendant". This decision is, perhaps, further evidence that the Court of Appeals should clarify its application of the "single egregious error" theory.

Rape in the First Degree Deemed Inclusory Concurrent Count

In People v. Henry Scott, the Fourth Department reversed a conviction for Rape in the First Degree on the grounds that it was an inclusory concurrent count of Predatory Sexual Assault Against a Child. The Court explained that:

"the predatory sexual assault count charged rape in the first degree as one of its elements and, as charged in the indictment, the elements of the predatory sexual assault with respect to rape in the first degree are precisely those required for rape in the first degree under Penal Law § 130.35 (4). Thus, it was impossible for defendant to commit predatory sexual assault against a child without, by the same conduct, committing rape in the first degree..."

New Link Regarding Challenges to Firearm Examiner's Testimony

The Indignant Indigent has added two news link to the "Resources" toolbar at the right entitled "Challenging Firearms Examiners" (two parts). The links lead to two articles by Professor Adina Schwartz of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice that appeared last year in the New York State Defender's Association publication, The Champion. In the articles, Professor Schwartz points out the weaknesses inherent to any firearms examiner's testimony and provides scientific evidence to support the position that no firearms examiner can reliably testify that he has found the one-and-only weapon that discharged a particular bullet or shell casing. The articles should be required reading for any attorney before cross-examining a firearms expert. You can also find the articles here and here.

It should also be known that three recent federal cases highlight the problems inherent in firearms identification and suggest that such testimony is vulnerable to legal challenges despite its having been long accepted in evidence, often without much debate (see US v. Glynn, 578 F Supp 2d 567 [SDNY 2008]; US v Montiero, 407 F Supp 2d 351, 355 [Dist Mass 2006]; and US v Green, 405 F Supp 2d 104).

Rare Reversal for Prosecutorial Misconduct

On April 24, 2009, the Fourth Department took the rare step of reversing a conviction on the grounds of partially unpreserved instances of prosecutorial misconduct. In People v. Kevin R. Morrice, "the prosecutor asked the witness if she was 'getting anything in return for [her] cooperation of telling the truth,' and she responded '[n]ot at all.' In fact, that witness was an accomplice and had received transactional immunity in exchange for her testimony before the grand jury (see CPL 50.10 [1]; 190.40 [2]). The prosecutor had an obligation to correct the misstatement of that witness but failed to do so." Then, "he compounded his misconduct in failing to correct the misstatement by telling the jury during summation that the witness was 'getting nothing out of having testified in this case'."

Later, "[t]he prosecutor also engaged in misconduct when he [twice] questioned a police detective on direct examination with respect to defendant's invocation of the right to counsel."

To make matters worse, "[t]he prosecutor further engaged in misconduct when he asked a defense witness on cross-examination whether she had ever been arrested for a crime", and then scolded the witness for only answering regarding whether she had ever been convicted of a crime.

As if this was not enough, "[t]he prosecutor also engaged in misconduct when he questioned that witness concerning whether her boyfriend was currently incarcerated, and he exceeded the bounds of legitimate advocacy during summation by characterizing defendant as a liar (see People v Fiori, 262 AD2d 1081; People v Bonilla, 170 AD2d 945, lv denied 77 NY2d 904)."

The court noted that although reversal is not the desired remedy for prosecutorial misconduct, "it is nevertheless mandated when the conduct of the prosecutor has caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he [or she] has been denied due process of law".

More posts to come over the next two days.

Conviction Reversed for Two Miranda Violations

In People v. Patrick Bungo, the defendant was arrested by his parole officer for having violated the terms of an order of protection issued in favor of his ex-wife. The police locked Mr. Bungo in the backseat of a police car with two other officers and inquired regarding his alleged contact with the ex-wife. The next day, the same parole officer confronted Mr. Bungo in the local jail regarding the incident. On both occassions, the defendant made incriminating statements without having been given Miranda warnings.

In reversing Mr. Bungo's conviction on Miranda grounds, the Fourth Department ruled:

" The first statement was made by defendant after he had been arrested and was in custody but before he had received his Miranda warnings, and the statement was made in response to questions that were " likely to elicit an incriminating response' " (People v Wearen, 19 AD3d 1133, 1134, lv denied 5 NY3d 834; see People v Evans, 294 AD2d 918, 919, lv dismissed 98 NY2d 768; People v Rifkin, 289 AD2d 262, lv denied 97 NY2d 759). The second statement was made at the Monroe County jail, before any Miranda warnings had been administered. The record establishes that it also was the result of custodial interrogation inasmuch as it "involve[d] the kind of inherently coercive atmosphere with which Miranda was most concerned" (People v Alls, 83 NY2d 94, 99, cert denied 511 US 1090; see People v Vila, 208 AD2d 781, lv denied 85 NY2d 867; People v Connor, 157 AD2d 739, lv denied 76 NY2d 732)."

Not an Abuse of Discretion to Deny Request for Adjournment

In People v. James Comfort, the Fourth Department affirmed the defendant's conviction and rejected his claim that he was denied due process and his right to a fair trial following the trial court's repeated denial of requests for adjournments. The Fourth Department noted that:

"The court granted defendant's "demand[]" for a new attorney approximately two weeks before trial was scheduled to commence, and defense counsel accepted the assignment with knowledge of the time constraints. We thus conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the requested adjournments (see People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 272; People v Povio, 284 AD2d 1011, lv denied 96 NY2d 923)."

The court's decision raises an interesting (and possibly leave-worthy) issue of whether the Fourth Department can properly analyze such a request, couched in due process terms, under the "abuse of discretion" standard. In People v. Foy (32 NY 2d 473 [1973]), the Court of Appeals stated that

“recent decisions of this Court reflect a more liberal policy in favor of granting a short adjournment... when the delay is requested in order to insure [sic] a fundamental right”.

There appears to be some dispute, even in other departments, over how or when this limitation on typically broad judicial discretion should apply.

Insufficent Evidence of Filing a False Instrument

In People v. Alexis Oberlander, the Fourth Department determined that there was legally insufficient evidence of filing a false instrument in the first degree. The government's allegation was that Ms. Oberlander defrauded county welfare services by failing to note on her application for DSS that she shared her home with another adult. The court noted that:

"Two prosecution witnesses who were frequent visitors at defendant's residence, including one who stayed at defendant's residence for a few months, testified that Banks lived at defendant's residence, and defendant's landlord testified that he believed that Banks lived at the residence. The basis for the testimony of those prosecution witnesses, however, was only that they often observed Banks at defendant's residence. The People failed to present other evidence to support the conclusion of those witnesses that Banks lived at defendant's residence, e.g., evidence that Banks received his mail at the residence, performed household chores, or paid household bills (cf. People v Hure, 16 AD3d 774, 775, lv denied 4 NY3d 854; Stumbrice, 194 AD2d at 933). "

The court further noted that the defendant's evidence contradicted the government's position:

"although Banks was often at her residence and slept there 2 to 3 nights per week, he did not live there and spent the remainder of the time at another woman's home or at the homes of his family members. Three other defense witnesses who were often at defendant's residence testified that Banks was frequently at the residence but that they did not observe any of his personal effects there, nor did they have any knowledge that he lived there. A fourth defense witness testified that she rarely saw Banks at defendant's residence and had no knowledge that he lived with defendant."

The court also reversed and granted a new trial on the one remaining count on the grounds that the trial court refused to grant a short adjournment to accommodate a defense witness.

Judge's Promise of Harsher Sentence After Trial Coerced Plea

In People v. Gunther Flinn, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the second degree. During his plea, the judge said that if Mr. Flinn was convicted after trial, he would a be treated "very differently as far as the sentence is concerned" if he exercised his right to a trial and that his sentence after trial would be "nothing like the sentence that [he] would get if [he] stood up and accepted [his] responsibility." The judge further said that after trial Mr. Flinn would be sentenced to "substantially longer than" the sentence he would receive after a plea.

Although Mr. Flinn did not seek to withdraw his plea before the lower court, the Fourth Department addressed the issue of his entitlement to withdrawal in the interests of justice and vacated the plea by stating:

"the court's statements do not amount to a description of the range of the potential sentences but, rather, they constitute impermissible coercion, "rendering the plea involuntary and requiring its vacatur" (People v Fanini, 222 AD2d 1111; see People v Stevens, 298 AD2d 267, 268, lv dismissed 99 NY2d 585; People v Wilson, 245 AD2d 161, 163, lv denied 91 NY2d 946)."

New Link Regarding DOJ Standards for Eyewitness Identification Procedures

The Indignant Indigent has added a new link in the "Resources" tool bar to the right. The link is to the Department of Justice's 1999 guidebook for law enforcement on the use of pre-trial identification procedures. The 55 page publication proposes protocols for law enforcement when speaking to eyewitnesses. The publication implicitly and explicitly acknowledges that even subtly improper identification procedures can result in skewed eyewitness memory.

A Discussion On Fundamental Fairness

It is worth reading yesterday's oral argument at the Supreme Court in the case of Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Company. At issue is whether a West Virginia appellate court judge should have recused himself after having received $3 million in campaign contributions from one of the parties. The case involves an intricate discussion of basic concepts of fundamental fairness and the impact of the election process on outcomes in litigation. Moreover, the case was expertly argued by two exceptional attorneys, Theodore B. Olson and Andrew L. Frey.

Weight of the Evidence Win... Almost.

In People v. Jones, the Third Department took the rare action of reversing a conviction on the grounds that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court determined that the government failed to disprove the defendant's claim of justification. The court said:

"no evidence was presented to counter defendant's and Walker's testimony that Lamphear was the initial aggressor in this attack. In addition, it is uncontroverted that before defendant ever took out the knife, Lamphear had not only repeatedly threatened him, but physically assaulted him and Walker with his fist, and then attacked defendant with a wooden board striking him so hard that he fractured defendant's arm. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that defendant had it in his power to retreat before being attacked by Lamphear and prior to his being struck repeatedly with the board. There is also no question that defendant struck Lamphear only once with the knife and that this occurred as defendant was fending off Lamphear's attack and attempting to safely leave the scene (see People v Richardson, 55 AD3d at 935; Matter of Ismael S., 213 AD2d at 169)."

Note the discussion of the defendant's lawful use of the knife. Be sure to read the very last paragraph where it is revealed that the appellate attorney failed to raise any issue arguing that the defendant's use of the knife was not unlawful. The appellate division did not reverse the weapons possession charge because:

"while the mere possession of a pocket knife is not a crime and is only transformed into criminal conduct upon a showing that the weapon was possessed "with intent to use the same unlawfully against another" (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]), we note that defendant has failed to present any specific arguments on this appeal challenging his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree."