People v. Chichester
| Decision Date | 20 October 1994 |
| Citation | 162 Misc.2d 658,618 N.Y.S.2d 201 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Henry F. CHICHESTER, III, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
James M. Catterson, Dist. Atty. of Suffolk County by Glenn Green, Riverhead, for the People.
Henry F. Chichester, III, defendant, pro se.
The defendant, pro se, by Notice of Motion made returnable August 25, 1994 has moved this Court to compel the District Attorney to permit the defendant to cause certain physical evidence allegedly held by that office in connection with its prosecution of the defendant to be subjected to DNA and other forensic analysis to be conducted by defendant's expert and other related relief.
The People have opposed the defendant's application by way of an affidavit in opposition dated August 25, 1994 submitted by Assistant District Attorney Glenn Green, Esq.
The question presently before this Court is not whether the defendant's judgment of conviction should be vacated pursuant to CPL Article 440, or otherwise, but whether the defendant can be precluded from seeking scientific proofs which alone or in conjunction with other evidence may demonstrate his actual innocence.
In Herrera v. Collins a majority of the Court acknowledged that a convicted person may have a right to habeas corpus relief on the grounds that to punish a person who is actually innocent is cruel and unusual punishment 1 and a denial of due process. 2 The Herrera Court also determined that the petitioner there had failed to make a truly persuasive showing of "actual innocence" and for that reason did not reach all of the constitutional issues presented by the case. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993).
Under New York law, the Governor is granted the authority to pardon a defendant on the ground of his innocence of the crime for which he or she has been convicted. Executive Law section 19.
It is not logical on the one hand, to recognize a constitutional right to assert a claim of innocence (Herrera v. Collins) or a statutory right (Executive Law section 19) and, on the other hand, preclude a convicted defendant from access to materials which theoretically may form all or a part of the required legal basis necessary to pursue these remedies.
The prosecution directs the Court to Criminal Procedure Law section 440.30(1-a) which became effective August 2, 1994:
"In cases of convictions occurring before January first, nineteen hundred ninety-six, where the defendant's motion requests the performance of a forensic DNA test on specified evidence, and upon the court's determination that any evidence containing deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') was secured in connection with the trial resulting in the judgment, the court shall grant the application for forensic DNA testing of such evidence upon its determination that if a DNA test had been conducted on such evidence, and if the results had been admitted in the trial resulting in the judgment, there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant." Emphasis supplied.
Executive Law section 995 (1 and 2) was concomitantly enacted with CPL section 440.30(1-a) and it defines both forensic laboratories and forensic DNA laboratories as being laboratories operated by the state or a unit of local government which perform such tests in the course of their business.
These new sections provide a narrowly circumscribed defendant's right to request forensic testing to be done by the state or a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cole
...[1994]).[10] New York provides for the pardon of an actually innocent defendant (see Executive Law § 19; see also People v Chichester, 162 Misc 2d 658, 659 [1994]). Thus, the incarceration of an actual innocent person in New York would not violate the Federal Many states have similarly hel......
-
People v. Gill
...testing be done by the state or a unit of local government if such tests are otherwise regularly performed by them. People v. Chichester, 162 Misc.2d 658, 618 N.Y.S.2d 201 (County Ct., Suffolk County, 1994); Washpon v. N.Y. State District Attorney, Kings County, 164 Misc.2d 991, 625 N.Y.S.2......
-
Washpon v. New York State Dist. Atty., Kings County
...could have led to a more favorable verdict to the defendant. The only case to interpret the new statute is People v. Chichester, 162 Misc.2d 658, 618 N.Y.S.2d 201 (Oct. 20, 1994). That court noted that concomitantly with CPL 440.30(1-a) the Legislature enacted a new Executive Law article 49......