People v. Edwards, Indictment No.: 07-0106
| Decision Date | 18 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | Indictment No.: 07-0106 |
| Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 34584 (U) |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. KEITH EDWARDS Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
DECISION & ORDER
The defendant was convicted on October 4, 2007, following a jury trial of three counts of Robbery in the First Degree, two counts of Assault in the First Degree, Criminal Use of a Firearm in the First Degree, and various other related crimes.1
The Defendant moves to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL § 330.30 on three grounds: (1) there is newly discovered evidence, as set forth in five affidavits submitted to the Court; (2) the conviction was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights under Brady v. Maryland; and (3) the trial evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion is denied.2
On March 27, 2006, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Carlos Romero was "hanging out" in thestairwell of an apartment building at 47 Riverdale Avenue in Yonkers with a friend by the name of James Morris. Romero heard a door on another floor open and close, and found himself confronted by the defendant, who was armed with a handgun. The defendant pointed the gun inches away from Romero's face and demanded his property. Romero pushed the gun away, and the two men began to struggle. The gun discharged during the course of the struggle, and a bullet struck Romero in the hip. The defendant, as well as Romero's friend Morris, fled the scene.
Romero limped to a store in front of the building for help. At the store, he realized that $340 in cash was missing from his pocket. He collapsed, the police were called, and Romero was taken by ambulance to the hospital.
The police recovered a shell casing and other evidence from the stairwell of 47 Riverdale Avenue, Although Romero initially told the police that he didn't know who had shot him, he later informed them that the defendant was the perpetrator and that he knew the defendant from the "Getty Square" area of Yonkers. The detective assigned to the case, Anthony Amodeo, also spoke to James Morris the day after the crime. Morris-who was 15 years old at the time-did not want to cooperate, nor did his mother want him involved.
Several months later, on June 15, 2006, the Yonkers Police Department executed a search warrant at an apartment at 57 Cliff Avenue where the defendant rented a bedroom. The police recovered a black nine millimeter handgun from a closet inside of the defendant's bedroom. Ballistics tests matched the shell casing recovered on March 27, 2006 from the scene of the crime with the handgun found inside of the defendant's bedroom.
The trial evidence also showed that on several occasions in July 2007, while Romero was serving 21 days in county jail on marijuana charges, other inmates approached him and pressuredhim to recant what he had told the police and to exonerate the defendant. Romero testified that on July 18, 2007, he signed such a statement "for his safety." Romero further testified that after the trial had commenced, and shortly before he was scheduled to testify, he was approached at night by several individuals who warned him, at gunpoint, to "keep his mouth shut."
The defendant called his girlfriend and two of his mother's friends to testify that on the date and time of the crime, he was at a birthday party for his mother at their home in Peekskill. The defendant also presented evidence through his girlfriend and two other witnesses that at times the defendant's bedroom at 57 Cliff Avenue had been used as a gathering place for approximately ten of the defendant's friends.
The defendant has submitted notarized statements from five individuals that purportedly represent "newly discovered evidence" in whole or in part. These individuals include James Morris, the alleged eyewitness who was present during the commission of the crime but whose whereabouts were unknown during trial and who did not testify; Jason Roper, a purported eyewitness who did not see the robbery but saw the complainant moments after it had occurred; Gigzell Willis, the defendant's mother who was present in the courtroom throughout the trial; Betsy Jose, the complainant's mother; and Carlos Romero, the complaining witness. The defendant also submitted an affidavit to the Court.
James Morris states by affidavit that he was in the stairway with Romero when the shooting occurred but that he did not see the perpetrator take any property from Romero. Morris confirms that he previously told the police that he was not a witness and would not cooperate.He claims that this was because he was afraid and because "his mother would be very upset." Morris further claims that the police found him sometime later and showed him a photograph of the defendant. Morris alleges that he told the police that the defendant was not the person who had shot Romero.3
Jason Roper states that he was on the first floor of 47 Riverdale Avenue talking on his phone when he heard a noise from the staircase.4 He saw his friend James run out of the stairwell screaming for help. He and James ran back into the staircase and asked "Carlos" (the complainant) who had shot him. Carlos responded that he didn't know. Carlos then reached into his coat pocket, pulled out ten bags of marijuana and $300 dollars, and handed it to Roper so the police "wouldn't get it." This alleged encounter is not reflected in the affidavits of Morris or Romero.
The defendant's mother, Gigzell Willis, details the efforts she made to try to locate James Morris, chiefly by speaking with the defendant's friends and asking them to canvass Riverdale Avenue. She reportedly learned from these "friends" that Morris may have moved away to live with his father, but they did not know his last name or where he lived. After the trial, Morris "found" Ms. Willis. Willis went to Morris' mother's apartment and purportedly obtained Morris' statement which is annexed to the instant motion.
Carlos Romero's mother, Betsy Jose, states in substance that the detectives assigned to the case made false promises to the family and threatened her son, and that her son told thedetectives that Keith Edwards was not the person who had shot him.
Finally, in an affidavit dated December 6, 2007, Carlos Romero again recants his trial testimony concerning his identification of the defendant. He claims that his prior jail recantation was not the product of threats by inmates, but rather out of guilt for falsely identifying the defendant to the police. Romero states that he identified the defendant at trial because he was afraid of the detectives, and now re-asserts that the defendant was not the person who shot him in the stairwell. As indicated above, he makes no reference to Roper.
Pursuant to CPL §330.30 (3), a court may set aside a verdict of conviction on the ground that "new evidence has been discovered since the trial which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant."
It is well established that a defendant seeking a new trial on the basis of "newly discovered evidence" has the burden to demonstrate that: (1) the new evidence was discovered since the trial; (2) it was undiscoverable before or during the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (3) it is material to the issue; (4) it is not cumulative; (5) it does not merely impeach or contradict the trial evidence; and (6) it is of such character as to create a probability the verdict would be more favorable to the defendant if a new trial were granted. Salemi v. New York, 350 U.S. 950, 76 S. Ct. 325, 100 L. Ed. 827 (1956), citing People v. Eng Hing, 212 N.Y. 373, 392, 106 N.E. 96, 31 N.Y. Cr. 429 (1914), and People v. Priori, 164 N.Y. 459, 472, 58 N.E. 668, 15N.Y. Cr. 194 (1900). The defendant's burden must be met by a fair preponderance of the evidence. People v. Latella, 112 A.D.2d 321, 491 N.Y.S.2d 771 (2d Dep't 1985).
The power to grant a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence is purely statutory and may be exercised only when the requirements of the statute have been met. People v. Salemi, 309 N.Y. at 215. Moreover, the determination of whether a defendant has satisfied the statutory criteria in order to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial rests with the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Baxley, 84 N.Y.2d 208, 212, 616 N.Y.S.2d 7 (1994); People v. Bryce, 88 N.Y.2d 124, 128, 643 N.Y.S.2d 516 (1996); People v. Crimmins, 38 N.Y.2d 407, 415-17, 381 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1975). If a defendant fails to demonstrate any one of the six factors, the motion for a new trial should be denied.
Morris' affidavit is problematic on many levels. Morris was known to be a potential witness from the outset of the trial, so he cannot truly be said to be "newly discovered," Through his affidavit, and contrary to statements he previously made to the police, Morris now states that he was present when Romero was shot. Morris re-affirms that he told the police, when interviewed, that he had seen nothing. He now claims to have said that out of fear. His present statement is therefore merely a recantation of his prior denial which is insufficient to sustain the defendant's burden with respect to newly discovered evidence. At most, it would serve only as impeachment testimony against evidence linking the defendant to the crime which, again, is insufficient for purposes of the present motion. The defendant would seek to have this Court turn a blind eye to all but that which aids the defendant's case. This Court will not do that.
Moreover, the October 19, 2007,...
To continue reading
Request your trial