People v. Adams
| Decision Date | 28 March 2013 |
| Citation | 20 N.Y.3d 608,987 N.E.2d 272,964 N.Y.S.2d 495,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02107 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Keith A. ADAMS, Appellant. |
20 N.Y.3d 608
987 N.E.2d 272
964 N.Y.S.2d 495
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02107
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Keith A. ADAMS, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of New York.
March 28, 2013.
[964 N.Y.S.2d 496]Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of counsel), for appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Kelly Wolford and Leslie E. Swift of counsel), for respondent.
PIGOTT, J.
[987 N.E.2d 273]
On September 20, 2009, complainant, a sitting Rochester City Court Judge, accused defendant, her neighbor and ex-paramour, of committing a crime by sending her three offensive text messages by cell phone earlier that day. The messages were vulgar and personal in nature, and unrelated to complainant's judicial duties. Defendant was charged, by way of an information/complaint filed in Rochester City Court, with two misdemeanor counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.30[1] [a], [b] ). All the Rochester City Court Judges recused themselves from the case. A Monroe County Court Judge presided over the arraignment.
Almost two months elapsed, and no plea bargain could be reached. At this point, at defense counsel's request, the case returned to Rochester City Court, where a visiting judge from a neighboring county was assigned, without objection, to preside over pretrial hearings in City Court. The parties remained at an impasse, despite numerous efforts by defense counsel to reach a plea deal.
In January 2010, the Public Defender filed an omnibus motion including a request that the Monroe County District Attorney be disqualified “on the grounds of actual prejudice and the existence of a conflict of interest” and that a special prosecutor be appointed. The motion also requested the assignment of new defense counsel, on the basis of the conflicting duties of the Public Defender to cross-examine complainant vigorously and to represent indigent clients seeking favorable treatment from her in City Court.
City Court granted the request for the assignment of new defense counsel; the Public Defender's office was relieved and an attorney from a neighboring county was assigned to represent [20 N.Y.3d 611]defendant. However, defendant's motion to disqualify the Monroe County District Attorney's office and for appointment of a special prosecutor, pursuant to County Law § 701(1), was denied, without prejudice to the filing of such a motion in County Court.
The new defense counsel spoke with the District Attorney's office regarding a possible settlement of the case, in which defendant would plead guilty to harassment in the second degree, a violation, in return for a sentence that would include 40 hours' community service and psychiatric treatment. As defense counsel later recalled their conversation, the prosecutor told him that, while in most cases this would be an adequate resolution, he was rejecting the offer “due to the position of the victim.” Defense counsel then spoke with complainant herself, who told him that she was “not willing to reduce the charges” and “wanted to go to trial.” No plea offers were extended to defendant.
In February 2010, defendant renewed his disqualification motion, in County Court, alleging prejudice and the appearance of impropriety. Defendant contended “that the District Attorney's office is in a conflict of interest position; to wit: By giving undue weight to the wishes of the victim in screening their case, the District
[987 N.E.2d 274]
Counsel recounted the communications he had with the District Attorney's office in which the prosecutor stated, in essence, that complainant was unwilling to accept a reduced charge. In an accompanying affidavit, defendant's original counsel from the Public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeffryes v. Vance
...v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils SA, 481 U.S. 787, 810, 107 S.Ct. 2124, 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987) ; People v. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 964 N.Y.S.2d 495, 987 N.E.2d 272 (2013) ; Cowles v. Brownell, 73 N.Y.2d 382, 387, 540 N.Y.S.2d 973, 538 N.E.2d 325 (1989).Along with exacting admissio......
-
People v. Hodgins
...( Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 55, 467 N.Y.S.2d 182, 454 N.E.2d 522 [1983] ; see People v. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d 608, 612, 964 N.Y.S.2d 495, 987 N.E.2d 272 [2013] ; People v. Jenkins, 186 A.D.3d 31, 36, 127 N.Y.S.3d 82 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1095, 131 N.Y.S.3d 303, 155 N.E.3......
- People v. Hanley
-
People v. Drago
...interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence" ( id. at 55, 467 N.Y.S.2d 182, 454 N.E.2d 522 ; see People v. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d 608, 612, 964 N.Y.S.2d 495, 987 N.E.2d 272 ). "[I]n rare situations, the appearance of impropriety itself is a ground for disqualification, ... when the a......
-
Attorney conduct
...conlict, move promptly to withdraw from the case and for your client to obtain new counsel. CASES Counsel disqualified People v. Adams , 20 N.Y.3d 608, 964 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2013). In a case in which a sitting Rochester City Court Judge was the complaining witness, District Attorney’s oice was......
-
Attorney conduct
...conlict, move promptly to withdraw from the case and for your client to obtain new counsel. CASES Counsel disqualified People v. Adams , 20 N.Y.3d 608, 964 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2013). In a case in which a sitting Rochester City Court Judge was the complaining witness, District Attorney’s oice was......
-
Attorney conduct
...conflict, move promptly to withdraw from the case and for your client to obtain new counsel. Cases Counsel disqualified People v. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d 608, 964 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2013). In a case in which a sitting Rochester City Court Judge was the complaining witness, District Attorney’s office wa......
-
Attorney conduct
...conlict, move promptly to withdraw from the case and for your client to obtain new counsel. CASES Counsel disqualified People v. Adams , 20 N.Y.3d 608, 964 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2013). In a case in which a sitting Rochester City Court Judge was the complaining witness, District Attorney’s oice was......