People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 06 October 1994 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Roy A. BROWN, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
James B. Vargason, Cayuga County Dist. Atty., Auburn, for plaintiff.
James R. McGraw, Syracuse, for defendant.
Defendant brings a post-conviction discovery motion requesting an order of this Court compelling the District Attorney of Cayuga County to make available evidence which was accumulated during the course of his criminal investigation so that he may avail himself of possible DNA testing.
Defendant, Roy A. Brown, was indicted in June of 1991 for the murder of Sabina Kulakowski, a social services worker for the County of Cayuga, said murder having occurred on May 23, 1991. An autopsy of the victim determined the deceased had been stabbed numerous times and presumably bitten by her assailant, who left seven sets of bite marks on the body of the victim. A laboratory analysis concluded that swabs taken from two of the seven bite marks contained salivary amylase. Blood grouping tests on the swabs were inconclusive.
At trial the People produced witnesses who testified: (1) the defendant had made threats against social services workers for taking his children from him; (2) that when angry, the defendant would often bite the target of his anger; (3) that the defendant had made an admission that he had killed a girl; and (4) that evidence of bite marks found on the deceased together with dental impressions of the defendant established the bite patterns to be identical insofar as measurements were concerned. In addition, the bite marks of the victim's assailant had three missing teeth which were identical in location with missing teeth as reflected in the defendant's dental impressions.
Testimony and lab reports concerning salivary amylase concluded there was not sufficient accumulation for a conclusive test as to blood grouping and no DNA testing was done. The laboratory reports reflecting the existence of the saliva swabs and the results of the testing were forwarded to defendant's counsel on August 13, 1991 and receipt of said lab reports was acknowledged by defendant's counsel on the record on August 15, 1991.
Trial commenced January 13, 1992 and concluded on January 23, 1992 with the jury finding the defendant guilty. The case was appealed to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which affirmed the conviction (People v. Brown, 195 A.D.2d 967, 600 N.Y.S.2d 593, 7/93) and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied (People v. Brown, 82 N.Y.2d 804, 604 N.Y.S.2d 940, 624 N.E.2d 1035, 10/13/94).
Defendant's application is for post-conviction discovery of the cotton swabs containing salivary amylase which the defendant hopes will allow DNA testing and possible favorable results which will exculpate him. Conceding there is no statutory authority for post-conviction discovery, the defendant contends that such testing would be in the interest of fundamental fairness and that if, in fact, the swabs lend themselves to DNA testing, the guilt or innocence of the defendant could be put to rest. While such logic may find a basis in emotion, it has no basis in statutory authority.
Historically, it has not been the option or practice of the judiciary to fashion procedures outside of statutory authority to revisit criminal convictions, as it has been tradition that the trial is the main event for determining guilt or innocence. Subsequent appeals are afforded the defendant to ensure the defendant's rights were protected and that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are those instances where a convicted defendant's innocence may come into question subsequent to the trial. Absent statutory relief the historical remedy has been the use of the executive pardon, which in the State of New York exists under Article 4, Section 4 of the New York State Constitution.
In addition, the State of New York, similar to many other states, has adopted procedural remedies which allow the judiciary to review a judgment of conviction in certain instances. This procedural remedy is encompassed in Section 440.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which enumerates those areas which would allow a court to vacate judgment subsequent to conviction.
Insofar as this case is concerned, the only section which appears to apply is Section 440.10(1)(g) which states:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washpon v. New York State Dist. Atty., Kings County
...222, 225, 428 N.Y.S.2d 649, 406 N.E.2d 465; CPL art. 240). There is no statutory basis for post-conviction discovery (People v. Brown, 162 Misc.2d 555, 618 N.Y.S.2d 188; People v. Callace, 151 Misc.2d 464, 573 N.Y.S.2d 137). If there be no statutory basis, the court has no power to order di......
-
People v. Kellar
...(see, Matter of Washpon v. New York State Dist. Attorney, Kings County, 164 Misc.2d 991, 993-994, 625 N.Y.S.2d 874; People v. Brown, 162 Misc.2d 555, 618 N.Y.S.2d 188; cf., Preiser, 1994 Supp.Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons.Laws of 11A, CPL 440.30, at 71 [1996 Pocket Part]. We note t......
-
People v. Trama
...was denied in at least one case where DNA testing was available at the time of trial but was not employed (see, People v. Brown, 162 Misc.2d 555, 618 N.Y.S.2d 188 [Cayuga County Court, 1994]. Effective August 1994, upon a proper showing, section 440.30(1-a) of the Criminal Procedure Law per......
-
People v. Diaz
...Callace, 151 Misc 2d 464 [Suffolk County Ct 1991]; Matter of Dabbs v Vergari, 149 Misc 2d 844 [Sup Ct, Westchester County 1990]; People v Brown, 162 Misc 2d 555 [Cayuga County Ct 1994]; People v Johnston, 2002 NY Slip Op 50140[U] [Putnam County Ct 2002].) People v Callace (supra) and Matter......
-
Foreword: Is Civil Rights Law Dead?
...DNA testing but the record shows the defendant's attorney made a strategic decision to not pursue DNA testing. See People v. Brown, 162 Misc. 2d 555, 558 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 1994); Wistle v. State, 525 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 1994); People v. Vaughn, 505 N.W.2d 41, 45 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993), rev'd on oth......