RECENT SUCCESSES
Court of Appeals and Appellate Division, First Department Reverse Convictions, Finding Guilty Pleas Not Knowing and Voluntary
People v. Alvaro Cumberbatch
People v. Charles Woods
Based on its recent decision in People v. Louree, the Court of Appeals vacated Alvaro Cumberbatch's unconstitutional guilty plea to robbery in the first degree because Mr. Cumberbatch was not told prior to the plea that his sentence would be followed by a mandatory period of post-release supervision. Because Mr. Cumberbatch's guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing, the Court reversed his conviction. Following the Louree decision, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed Charles Woods's conviction for assault in the second degree. As in People v. Cumberbatch, the Court found the failure to advise the defendant of the period of post-release supervision rendered the guilty plea not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Mr. Cumberbatch was represented by Senior Staff Attorney Margaret Knight, and Mr. Woods was represented by Law Intern Ranbir Chowdhary, a participant in OAD's Criminal Appellate Defender Clinic at NYU School of Law, and Supervising Attorney Sara Gurwitch.
Federal Habeas Corpus Petitions
OAD Client Obtains Habeas Relief
United States District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for OAD client Charles Walker, ordering that a writ issue within 90 days unless the State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) removes the period of post-release supervision (PRS) it had imposed administratively. When Mr. Walker pleaded guilty to robbery charges, he was sentenced to nine years in prison. The judge did not impose any period of post-release supervision. However, once Mr. Walker was in state custody, DOCS administratively added five years of PRS.
After litigating the issue in the state courts, Mr. Walker filed a habeas petition in federal court, claiming that, even though PRS was required, only the court could impose it, and DOCS' addition of PRS to the sentence was unconstitutional. Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis recommended that the writ be granted and Judge Castel adopted the Judge Ellis' Report and Recommendation in its entirety, rejecting all of the government's procedural and substantive arguments.
Risa Gerson, Director Of Special Litigation, represented Mr. Walker.
Court of Appeals
Court Vacates OAD Client's Plea to Robbery in the First Degree
People v. Juan Castillo
The Court of Appeals recently upheld OAD's win in the Appellate Division in the case of Juan Castillo. The Court of Appeals agreed that Mr. Castillo's plea to first degree robbery had to be vacated because he had never actually been charged with the crime to which he pled. Although Mr. Castillo had been charged with another type of robbery, the plea court and the prosecution elicited a guilty plea from Mr. Castillo to a type of robbery for which he had never been indicted. On Mr. Castillo's direct appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, agreed with OAD that New York State case law required a finding that such a plea violated Mr. Castillo's fundamental rights by allowing the prosecution to obtain a conviction for a crime that it had never sufficiently proven before the Grand Jury. And, in a decision dated May 3, 2007, the Court of Appeals similarly concluded that Mr. Castillo's plea was jurisdictionally defective, and affirmed the Appellate Division's decision.
Mr. Castillo is represented by Senior Staff Attorney Jonathan Marvinny and Deputy Attorney-in-Charge Sara Gurwitch.
Appellate Division, First Department
Appellate Division Grants Article 78 Petition, Overturning Trial Court's Solitary Confinement Directive
People v. Jovan Fludd
OAD was assigned to handle Jovan Fludd's appeal from his forgery convictions, arising out of his filing of a series of false UCC liens against prosecutors and judges who had been involved in an earlier prosecution and conviction of him. When Staff Attorney Jenny Eisenberg got the case, she learned that the trial court (Justice Arlene Goldberg) had issued an ex parte order, imposing severe restrictions on Mr. Fludd in prison in order to prevent him from continuing to file false claims. The order directed, among other things, that all of Mr. Fludd's mail would be monitored by a Special Master, and Mr. Fludd would be confined indefinitely in a Special Housing Unit (solitary confinement), to prevent him from using other inmates to "kite" mail out on his behalf. OAD first challenged the order by way of Order to Show Cause to Justice Goldberg, arguing that she had no authority to impose such restrictions once the criminal case was over. While the judge lifted the restrictions on legal correspondence, she kept the other restrictions in place.
OAD then filed an Article 78 petition against Justice Goldberg in the Appellate Division, again arguing that she had exceeded her lawful authority in imposing these restrictions. After nearly a year under consideration, the court granted the petition in a 3-2 vote. Justice Catterson wrote for the court (with Justices Nardelli and Sweeny joining), while Justice Saxe wrote a dissent on behalf of himself and Justice Gonzalez. In its decision, the majority rejected Justice Goldberg's reliance on a court's "inherent power" to impose restrictive conditions, clarifying the extremely limited applicability of this doctrine, particularly when the challenged action has taken place post-judgment. The restrictions were punitive, even though they had been imposed as a means of addressing prospective conduct. Voicing its disapproval of such measures, the court held that "[t]o allow the court to place [Mr. Fludd] in solitary confinement because it believes that [Mr. Fludd] intends to commit further harassment is repulsive and contrary to the whole foundation of our penal system" (emphasis in original). As a result of this decision, Justice Goldberg's orders have been vacated in their entirety. Had the orders remained in effect, Mr. Fludd would likely have served all of his six-to-twelve year sentence in solitary confinement.
Mr. Fludd is represented by staff attorney Jenny Eisenberg, and supervising attorney Rosemary Herbert.
Appeal Held in Abeyance Where Court Improperly Denied Speedy Trial Hearing
People v. John Oliveri, Jr.
After the prosecution's key witness went missing for months on end, John Oliveri, Jr. sought to dismiss his indictment on speedy trial grounds. The case had been pending for so long that the motions court had repeatedly expressed its impatience with the prosecution's inability to proceed to trial. When the prosecution finally found the witness (who was facing drug charges in Florida), it stated ready for trial and Mr. Oliveri moved to dismiss under CPL 30.30. The motions court, however, refused to consider the motion and Mr. Oliveri was convicted of witness tampering. On appeal, Mr. Oliveri argued that the court should not have summarily rejected his motion without a hearing, as it was timely and properly filed. The prosecution conceded the timeliness of the motion, but argued that they never received proper notice of it. The Appellate Division rejected that claim. Not only did the Appellate Division find that argument meritless, it also found it unpreserved. In light of this conclusion, the Appellate Division remanded Mr. Oliveri's case back to Supreme Court for a hearing on his CPL 30.30 motion.
Mr. Oliveri is represented by staff attorney Jenny Eisenberg and supervising attorney Daniel Warshawsky.
Conviction Reversed: Appellate Division Holds That Trial Counsel's Inadequate Performance Doomed His Client's Defense to Failure.
People v. Louis Cyrus
On December 15, 2002, Louis Cyrus was arrested leaving a drugstore having shoplifted several gift sets. He was then questioned by the police in three different locations. After 17 hours, and feeling sick from heroin withdrawal, Mr. Cyrus waived his Miranda rights and signed a statement admitting that he took the gift sets, and that he displayed a box cutter when leaving the store. The display of the box cutter elevated the crime from petit larceny, a misdemeanor, to robbery in the first degree, a Class B violent felony.
Despite the fact that there were six colorable suppression arguments that trial counsel could have made to prevent the jury from hearing the statement, trial counsel made no legal arguments for suppression. Instead, based on his admitted inexperience and failure to prepare for the hearing, he simply asserted that the officer's testimony was not credible because it contained minor discrepancies. The court denied the suppression motion, which resulted in the jury hearing the inculpatory admission made by Mr. Cyrus. Even more devastating, trial counsel blundered by asking the police officers whether they had viewed a store surveillance tape that had been destroyed prior to trial. The fact that the tape had been destroyed prevented the prosecution from introducing any evidence of the tape or its contents. But trial counsel's questions to the officers "opened the door" to their testimony that they had viewed the surveillance tape and had observed Mr. Cyrus with a "metallic object" in his hand.
On appeal, the Appellate Division found that "counsel's performance at the suppression hearing was abysmal" and that "counsel's performance was only marginally better at trial." Finding that the failure of Mr. Cyrus's trial counsel to investigate the law and facts relevant to the case led to crucial errors that "effectively doomed his client's defense to failure," the court reversed Mr. Cyrus's conviction and ordered a new trial.
Mr. Cyrus was represented by Volunteer Appellate Defender Yehudah Buchweitz of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP and OAD Supervising Attorney Risa Gerson.
Appellate Division, First Departments Rebukes Bronx District Attorney's Office for Withholding Critical Evidence
People v. Pedro Garcia
In People v. Pedro Garcia and Betzayda Melendez, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of Bronx Supreme Court Justice Steven Lloyd Barrett granting the defense motion to vacate the conviction. In a strongly-worded decision, the Court agreed with the defense that the prosecution had willfully suppressed evidence it had an obligation to turn over to the defense at trial.
In this case, Mr. Garcia and Ms. Melendez, the parents of five children, were convicted of kidnapping a 13-year old girl, who was the friend of one of their children. The girl told an extraordinary tale of being held captive in a boiler room for more than a year, and then being taken against her will to Puerto Rico by Ms. Melendez. The prosecution was able to present no motive for this alleged kidnapping and it was the defense theory that the Garcia-Melendez family had taken the girl in to protect her from abuse and neglect in her home.
While the girl testified at trial that she screamed and caused a commotion on the flight to Puerto Rico, the prosecution had interviewed the flight attendants on the flight and knew that they all stated that no such disturbance occurred. It was the flight attendant statements that were withheld from the defense and the trial judge, in what the court described as "a flagrant violation by the prosecutor of his constitutional and ethical obligations."
This case was handled by Supervising Attorney Sara Gurwitch
Court Reverses Conviction Where Client Denied Right to Seek Change of Counsel
People v. William Rodriguez
When William Rodriguez, on the eve of trial, said "I don't want this lawyer," the trial judge essentially told him to shut up and that he would not get a new lawyer. Mr. Rodriguez was then tried and convicted on robbery and burglary charges and sentenced to twenty years in prison. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed the conviction, ruling that the trial judge erred in failing to conduct even a minimal inquiry into Mr. Rodriguez's request to determine whether there was good cause for a change of counsel.
This case was handled by volunteer attorney Zorka Milin, of Allen & Overy, under the supervision of Attorney-in-Charge Richard M. Greenberg.
Click here to read the decision.
Appellate Division Vacates OAD Client's Guilty Plea
People v. Angel Aleman
Angel Aleman, a 27 year-old man with no criminal record, was accused of paying an undercover officer to kill a former love interest. After the commencement of trial, Mr. Aleman decided to accept a plea offer and pled guilty to conspiracy in the second degree in exchange for a sentence of one and two-thirds to five years imprisonment. During the plea allocution, however, Mr. Aleman steadfastly maintained his innocence and refused to admit to the allegations, maintaining that he was merely trying to purchase an automobile. Because of Mr. Aleman's protestations, defense counsel requested that the court not accept Mr. Aleman's plea and send the case to trial. Despite defense counsel's request, the court continued its efforts to obtain a plea and ultimately succeeded in having Mr. Aleman say "yes," to committing the alleged crime. The court accepted Mr. Aleman's guilty plea without informing him of the trial rights he would be waiving, save the right to go to trial. The court also obtained a waiver of Mr. Aleman's right to appeal.
Notwithstanding Mr. Aleman's failure to move to vacate his plea, the Appellate Division vacated Mr. Aleman's guilty plea, finding that the allocution was deficient because the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry, even though the recitation of facts cast significant doubt on Mr. Aleman's guilt. The court also found that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because Mr. Aleman was not informed of the rights he was waiving.
Mr. Aleman was represented by Staff Attorney Kerry S. Jamieson and Supervising Attorney Eunice C. Lee.
Sentence Reduction for OAD Client
People v. Johnny Rios
The Appellate Division, First Department, has reduced the sentence of OAD client Johnny Rios. Mr. Rios was convicted of nine crimes arising from six separate incidents of sexual misconduct. He was sentenced by the trial judge to an aggregate term of thirty-seven years in prison, which was reduced by statute to twenty years because none of the crimes of which he was convicted were class A or class B felonies. The Appellate Division, in its recent decision, ordered all sentences to run concurrently, which has the effect of reducing Mr. Rios' aggregate sentence to a term of fifteen years.
Staff Attorney Jessica Yager represents Mr. Rios.
Appellate Division Throws Out Murder Conviction; Innocent OAD Client Released from Custody
People v. Israel Vasquez
On August 23, 2007, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the second degree murder conviction of OAD client, Israel Vasquez, finding that the evidence presented was legally insufficient to support a conviction. The court dismissed the indictment, ending a long ordeal for Mr. Vasquez.
The case arose out of the murder of Denise Raymond. Ms. Raymond came home to her apartment in the Soundview area of the Bronx after work on the evening of January 17, 1995. Based on the crime scene later discovered, it appeared as if she was accosted as she entered her apartment, after which she was dragged to her bedroom, handcuffed, blindfolded, and gagged, and then shot twice in the head, through two pillows that were placed over her. According to the prosecution, this execution-style murder was masterminded by Charles McKinnon, a former boyfriend of Ms. Raymond. McKinnon was charged with the murder and, after a separate trial, was acquitted. Mr. Vasquez and his co-defendants were charged with having carried out the murder.
There were no eyewitnesses and no forensic evidence linking Israel Vasquez to the crime. Nor, despite the prosecution theory, was there any evidence that Mr. Vasquez either knew or had ever met with McKinnon. The sole "evidence" against Mr. Vasquez was the questionable testimony of a troubled teen – Cathy Gomez's impeached and retracted assertion that she overheard Mr. Vasquez say he had eaten a sandwich and drank juice in Ms. Raymond's apartment. This statement allegedly occurred in a park the day after the Raymond murder. However, this evidence was entirely contradicted by her earlier grand jury testimony, in which Gomez attributed that statement to a different person. On cross-examination, Gomez admitted that she did not know who made that statement or even whether the statement had ever been made. After trial, she acknowledged to Mr. Vasquez's attorney that she had fabricated her testimony under pressure from the police.
The prosecution sought to portray Ms. Raymond's death as part of a well-planned conspiracy that also included the homicide of cab driver Baithe Diop, which was also charged in this indictment. Diop was murdered in his car two days after the Raymond murder. While Diop was killed as part of a robbery, the prosecution theorized that Ms. Raymond's murder was a professional execution orchestrated by McKinnon for some unexplained reason, and that, although some items were taken, robbery was not the motive. In other words, the two crimes were vastly different in terms of motive and modus operandi. No evidence was produced at trial that Israel Vasquez participated in either murder. Mr. Vasquez was acquitted of all counts pertaining to Diop's death.
Despite the remarkably weak evidence against Mr. Vasquez, after six days of deliberations, the jury convicted him of murder in the death of Denise Raymond. The trial court refused to review the serious concerns about Cathy Gomez's testimony.
On appeal, the Appellate Division recognized that the case against Israel Vasquez was "flawed" and "based on speculation unsupported by any credible evidence." Thus, the Court found that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, "there is simply nothing that could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that defendant was proven guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt of this allegedly ‘well-planned' contract murder." Having been exonerated, Israel Vasquez was released from prison to rejoin his family.
Mr. Vasquez was represented by former OAD Senior Staff Attorneys Jessica Henry and Melissa Rothstein, and Attorney-in-Charge Rick Greenberg.
Second Conviction Reversed for OAD Client
People v. Jose Diaz
On June 7, 2007, the First Department reversed Jose Diaz’s conviction of first degree burglary. Mr. Diaz had been convicted after he pled guilty. He pled guilty because he had been promised that the sentence he received would run concurrently with his sentence on an unrelated Brooklyn conviction. But when the Brooklyn conviction was reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct, the very fact that induced Mr. Diaz to plead guilty ceased to exist. The Appellate Division agreed with OAD that under these circumstances, Mr. Diaz’s conviction could not stand.
Volunteer attorney Samantha Fisherman, of Weil Gotshal & Manges, and Deputy Attorney-in-Charge Daniel Warshawsky represent Mr. Diaz.
Conviction Reversed and New Trial Ordered for OAD Client
People v. Joseph McNeil
The Appellate Division First Department reversed Joseph McNeil's robbery conviction because the trial court sanctioned an improper procedure during jury selection at Mr. McNeil's trial. The procedure in question allowed the prosecution to select individual potential jurors for possible inclusion on the jury, even though it had initially indicated that it wished to strike those potential jurors from consideration. The Court, after allowing the prosecution to withdraw its strikes to those jurors, then compelled Mr. McNeil to use his own strikes against those same potential jurors, and credited the prosecution with additional strikes to use in a future round of jury selection. In that way, even though the same potential jurors were eventually struck from the jury pool, the prosecution was able to gain additional strikes, while Mr. McNeil was required to use his own strikes. The Court agreed with OAD's argument that the procedure in question violated Mr. McNeil's rights under New York State law and entitled him to a new trial. Mr. McNeil had been serving a sentence of 20 years to life.
Mr. McNeil is represented by Senior Staff Attorney Jonathan Marvinny.
Appellate Division Rules Search Unconstitutional
People v. Santiago Morales
In Santiago Morales' case, the Appellate Division held that the police had violated Mr. Morales' Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his bag without a warrant. While the prosecution alleged that the warrantless search was proper under the "search incident to arrest" exception, the Court rejected this argument as the search simply was not incident to arrest - it took place long after Mr. Morales was arrested and in a different location. On appeal, the prosecution changed its theory and argued that the search was proper under the "inventory search" exception to the warrant requirement, but the Court rejected this argument as it was not presented to the hearing court.
Mr. Morales was represented in the Appellate Division by NYU Criminal Appellate Defender Clinic student Christopher Deal, under the supervision of Deputy Attorney-in-Charge Sara Gurwitch. In addition to writing the opening brief, Christopher remained with the case for the reply brief, and argued the case to a panel of justices of the Appellate Division, First Department.
New Pre-Trial Hearing Ordered for OAD Client
People v. Catherine Johnson
Catherine Johnson was accused of robbery in the first degree for robbing a fourteen year-old girl at gunpoint in pursuit of her costume jewelry and a MetroCard. At the time of her alleged crime, Ms. Johnson was thirty one years old and had never been convicted of a crime. She worked a stable job, owned a car, and rented her own apartment. Based on only the identification testimony of the fourteen year-old victim and a gun that was recovered from Ms. Johnson's apartment, Ms. Johnson was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.
Almost two weeks after the alleged robbery, two police officers went to Ms. Johnson's apartment at 8:30 in the morning, without a warrant, and knocked on her door. The officers told Ms. Johnson that she was mentioned in a robbery, and Ms. Johnson told them to come into her apartment. One of the officers, after telling Ms. Johnson that she had to accompany them to the police station, asked Ms. Johnson whether she had any weapons anywhere in her entire house. Ms. Johnson responded that her boyfriend kept a gun under the mattress, and the police recovered the gun.
At the conclusion of the pre-trial suppression hearing, instead of arguing for suppression of the gun and Ms. Johnson's statement based on several legal grounds available to him, defense counsel informed the Court that he saw no basis for suppression. On appeal, Ms. Johnson argued that her trial attorney was ineffective for waiving her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to suppression of the evidence.
The Appellate Division agreed that Ms. Johnson's attorney was ineffective for failing to raise "several colorable arguments" that were available to him, and ordered a new pre-trial hearing. Ms. Johnson's appeal will be held in abeyance until the resolution of the hearing.
Staff Attorney Ana Vuk-Pavlovic and Supervising Attorney Eunice C. Lee represent Ms. Johnson.
Appellate Division Grants Sentence Reduction
People v. Narendra Jodhan
The Appellate Division took the unusual step of reducing the sentence in a case involving a violent crime. Former OAD Senior Staff Attorney Alexis Agathocleous persuaded the Court that Narendra Jodhan's sentence - concurrent twenty year terms - was excessive, where Mr. Jodhan was only twenty one years old at the time of the offense and where he had no prior criminal record. The Court reduced the sentence to concurrent fifteen year terms.
OAD Senior Staff Attorney Alexis Agathocleous represented Mr. Jodhan.
Conviction Reduction and Resentencing Ordered for OAD Client
People v. Wayman Esquilin
The Appellate Division reduced Wayman Esquilin's conviction from grand larceny in the third degree to grand larceny in the fourth degree. Mr. Esquilin, a disabled Viet Nam veteran, was using an ATM card for the first time. He was charged with grand larceny after the bank alleged that he made a series of "empty envelope" deposits using an ATM machine. Although the Court rejects the argument that proof of larcenous intent was lacking, it was persuaded that the method used for computing the amount of the larceny was incorrect and reduced the charge accordingly. After initially declining to order resentencing, the Appellate Division granted rehearing and ordered that Mr. Esquilin be resentenced by the trial court. Mr. Esquilin is currently awaiting resentencing.
Mr. Esquilin is represented by Volunteer Appellate Defender Cindy Chen of Weil, Gotshal & Manges and OAD Supervising Attorney Rosemary Herbert.
Trial Court's Improper Questioning Results in a New Hearing for OAD Client
People v. Gregory Latham
Gregory Latham attempted to shoplift several items from the Hallmark Store on Christmas Eve. After the items were recovered, he allegedly threatened the store employees and pushed one of them. He was charged with and pled guilty to third degree robbery for a sentence of two to four years. However, before he was sentenced, he made a motion to withdraw his plea, alleging that it was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary and stating that he was pressured into taking the plea. In response to his motion, the court proceeded to question Mr. Latham only about whether he perjured himself during the plea allocution and then summarily denied the motion.
The Appellate Division found that the trial court's inquiry failed to provide Mr. Latham an adequate opportunity to present his claim. By focusing on whether Mr. Latham had committed perjury during the plea allocution by admitting his guilt instead of conducting some inquiry about his claim of coercion, the trial court presented Mr. Latham with a "Hobson's Choice" of either admitting perjury or abandoning his motion. The Appellate Division ruled to hold the appeal in abeyance and remand the case for a new hearing where Mr. Latham can fully litigate his motion to withdraw the plea.
Mr. Latham is represented by former Senior Staff Attorney Courtni Y. Burleson.
Appellate Division Reverses Manslaughter Conviction Based on Erroneous Justification Instruction
People v. Luis Soriano
Luis Soriano was charged with murder, and ultimately convicted of first degree manslaughter and sentenced to 17 years. He raised a justification defense based on witnesses who agreed that the deceased was attacking Mr. Soriano and his brother with a baseball bat before Mr. Soriano, in defense, stabbed him. One of the components of a justification defense is the duty to retreat before one can employ deadly force. However, in order to defeat the justification defense on the basis of the duty to retreat, the prosecution had to prove not only that Mr. Soriano could have safely retreated, but that he knew that he could have retreated. The court initially correctly charged the law on the duty to retreat, but then in recapping the instruction, only repeated the objective portion of the instruction, i.e., whether the accused could have retreated safely, but left out the subjective portion, i.e., that he knew he could do so. Although defense counsel did not object to the trial court’s erroneous instruction, the Appellate Division, noting the closeness of the evidence in the case, unanimously reversed Mr. Soriano’s conviction in the interest of justice and ordered a new trial.
OAD Senior Staff Attorney Alexis Agathocleous and Supervising Attorney Eunice Lee represented Mr. Soriano in the Appellate Division.
Appellate Division Reverses Double-Homicide Conviction for OAD Client Who Was Denied His Sixth-Amendment Right to Confront a Witness at Trial
People v. Damon Williams
Damon Williams was convicted of a double-homicide at the Phipps Houses in Manhattan, based solely on accomplice testimony. The homicide occurred a day after an altercation between some young men who lived and hung out at the Phipps Houses and Ramon Cross - Damon Williams' half-brother. The prosecution's theory was that the shootings were revenge for a beating Ramon Cross had received at a downtown nightclub the night before from Avan Logan and his Phipps Houses friends. According to the prosecution, there were a series of physical altercations between Avan Logan and his friends and Ramon Cross and his friends over a period of years, and there was bad blood between the two groups of young men. The prosecution ultimately secured indictments against three men for the homicides: Ronald Ambrose (who was acquitted), Randy Picard, and Damon Williams.
Approximately ten days after the shootings, Duane Thomas, a friend of Ramon Cross', hired an attorney and surrendered himself to the police. Thomas admitted to being the person who drove the two shooters to the Phipps Houses on the day of the double-homicide, but claimed not to be aware that the shooters had an intent to kill. Thomas named Randy Picard and Damon Williams as the shooters.
Every piece of evidence identifying Damon Williams and Randy Picard as the perpetrators came from the mouth of Duane Thomas. At trial, Thomas admitted he had received a plea bargain where, in exchange for testimony deemed to be truthful by the prosecution, he could receive a probationary sentence. The only other evidence tying Damon Williams to the shootings was the statement provided by Pey Lee, who was scheduled to testify but was unavailable at trial. Pey Lee had allegedly supplied one of the guns used in the double-homicide, and Pey Lee admitted this to a police detective shortly after the shootings. Pey Lee's statement was read into the record over defense counsel's objection that such evidence deprived Damon Williams his right to confrontation as guaranteed by the 6th amendment to the United States Constitution.
Although four witnesses who testified at trial identified co-defendant Ronald Ambrose as being present at the shootings, and one witness testified that Ronald Ambrose shot his gun at him, none of the witnesses - even those who testified they knew Damon Williams previously - identified Damon Williams as being present at the scene of the crime. The only evidence of Damon Williams' involvement in the shootings was the testimony of accomplices as a matter of law.
As a result of the paucity of evidence that Damon Williams was actually one of the shooters, the prosecution relied heavily on Pey Lee's statement, arguing to the jury that Pey Lee's statement was "strong evidence against Damon Williams." During deliberations, the jury asked for a read-back of Pey Lee's statement.
The Appellate Division reversed Damon Williams' conviction, holding that the introduction of Pey Lee's statement violated Mr. Williams' right to confrontation, as the prosecution had conceded in its appellate brief. The Appellate Division, however, did not accept the prosecution's argument that the constitutional violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, the Court found that the evidence against the defendants was "not particularly strong," noted the prosecutor had argued in summation that the statement was "strong evidence" against the defendants, and that the jury had asked for a read-back of the statement during deliberations, warranting the conclusion that the admission of Pey Lee's statement was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court ordered a new trial for Damon Williams.
OAD Supervising Attorney Risa Gerson represents Mr. Williams.
Supreme Court
Trial Court Vacates Sex Offender Determination
People v. Williams
In October 2007, the Supreme Court of Bronx County agreed with OAD that its finding that John Doe* must register as a sex offender was improper because the offense of which he was convicted did not involve either a sex offense or a minor. Accordingly, the order certifying him as a registerable sex offender was vacated. Mr. Doe is now free of the burdensome reporting requirements of New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act.
Mr. Doe is represented by Senior Staff Attorney Christina Graves.
* Name has been changed to protect privacy.