People v. Garrett

• Decision Date: 30 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 133,133
• Citation: 994 N.Y.S.2d 22,18 N.E.3d 722,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04876,23 N.Y.3d 878
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Mark GARRETT, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

23 N.Y.3d 878

18 N.E.3d 722

994 N.Y.S.2d 22

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04876

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant

v.Mark GARRETT, Respondent.

No. 133

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 30, 2014.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead (Anne E. Oh of counsel), for appellant.

Feldman & Feldman, Uniondale (Steven A. Feldman and Arza Feldman of counsel), for respondent.

Kathleen M. Rice, White Plains, Steven A. Bender, William C. Milaccio,

Richard Longworth Hecht, Maryanne Luciano and Tammy J. Smiley, Mineola, for District Attorneys Association of the State of New York, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ABDUS–SALAAM, J.

Defendant Mark Garrett was convicted after trial of two counts of murder in the second degree for killing a 13–year–old girl. The evidence against defendant included his confession, which he maintained was false and had been coerced by police. In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the People committed a constitutional violation (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 [1963] ) when they did not disclose that a federal civil action had been brought against one of their police witnesses, a homicide detective who interrogated defendant, alleging that the detective engaged in police misconduct in an unrelated case. We hold that the People's failure to disclose this evidence did not constitute a Brady violation.

I.

On July 18, 1998, Suffolk County police were called to investigate an overwhelming odor in a neighborhood in Wyandanch. The police discovered a dead body bundled up in sheets and dark colored plastic behind the fence of defendant's mother's home. Homicide detectives interviewed Frank Garrett, defendant's brother, and his girlfriend, J.C., who lived near defendant's mother. The detectives learned that J.C.'s 13–year–old daughter, L.C., had been missing for almost two weeks and that she was last seen leaving her home with defendant. Defendant, who was then on parole, had previously lived with his brother and J.C., and often visited his mother's home, but he had not been seen since L.C.'s disappearance. J.C. helped the detectives locate L.C.'s dental records, which were used to positively identify the dead body as L.C. on July 21st.

On July 23rd, detectives located defendant in an unoccupied residence in Coram, New York and arrested him pursuant to an outstanding parole warrant. They then transported defendant to the homicide bureau in Yaphank, where he was interrogated by several detectives, including Detective Vincent O'Leary. Although defendant initially denied any involvement in L.C.'s death, he eventually confessed orally and in writing that he had killed L.C. at his mother's home. In a signed sworn statement, defendant said that he had “wanted to have sex with [L.C.],” and when she refused, he grabbed her “tight around her chest and lift[ed] her up off the ground ... a lot of times,” at one point holding her in “a full nelson” by “squeezing her around the chest.” L.C. went limp in defendant's arms, and when he could not revive her, he bound her body in electrical wire, wrapped it in sheets and garbage bags, and threw her over his mother's fence into an adjacent yard. After providing this statement, defendant drew a sketch of the crime scene and marked several crime scene photographs to depict, among other things, where he had deposited L.C.'s body.

Defendant was indicted on three counts of murder in the second degree (see Penal Law § 125.25 ). Prior to trial, defendant filed a demand for discovery, in which he generally requested that the People disclose all Brady material. He also moved to suppress his confession as false and involuntarily made. At a suppression hearing held in November 1999, the People presented testimony from Detective O'Leary and Detective Eugene Walsh. These witnesses testified, in essence, that after defendant was advised of and waived his Miranda rights, he voluntarily

confessed to the murder without being coerced to do so. Defendant offered a very different version of events: he testified at the hearing that the detectives never read him his Miranda rights and that they coerced him into signing a false confession by subjecting him to intense physical and psychological abuse. Defendant also presented the testimony of several witnesses, including two other homicide detectives who had interrogated him. While questioning Detective Samuel DeJesus, defense counsel asked the detective whether he or Detective O'Leary had been “involved in the James Halverson homicide case,” which counsel explained “was a case involving a false confession.” The suppression court sustained the prosecutor's objection to this line of questioning. After the hearing, the court denied defendant's suppression motion.

At trial, the People presented defendant's incriminating statements primarily through Detective O'Leary's testimony. The jury also considered circumstantial evidence implicating defendant in L.C.'s death, including testimony that the electrical wire and sheets found on L.C.'s body matched wire and sheets seized from defendant's mother's home, that L.C. was last seen alive leaving her home with defendant, and that, according to J.C., L.C. left with defendant to go to his mother's home. Detective O'Leary also testified that defendant's bedding and belongings were found in an interior, windowless hallway in the residence where he was arrested, indicating that he had been attempting to avoid detection. While cross-examining Detective O'Leary, defense counsel again referenced “the Halverson case,” this time asking O'Leary if he worked on that case or was “familiar” with it. The prosecutor objected and defense counsel explained, at a sidebar, that O'Leary's involvement in the Halverson case was relevant because that case allegedly involved a false confession. The trial court sustained the objection and defense counsel did not pursue the inquiry further.

The jury returned a verdict convicting defendant of depraved indifference murder (see Penal Law § 125.25[2] ) and felony murder (id. at [3] ), and in June 2000, he was sentenced to two concurrent indeterminate terms of 25 years to life in prison. The Appellate Division affirmed on direct appeal (see People v. Garrett, 8 A.D.3d 676, 780 N.Y.S.2d 605 [2d Dept.2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 674, 784 N.Y.S.2d 12, 817 N.E.2d 830 [2004] ). The court held, among other things, that the suppression hearing evidence established that defendant's incriminating statements were made voluntarily after he was advised of his Miranda rights, and that the trial evidence was legally sufficient

to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see id. at 676–677, 780 N.Y.S.2d 605 ).

In December 2009, defendant, acting pro se, moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction. Defendant claimed that the People committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose to him that an unrelated civil action had been brought against Detective O'Leary and Suffolk County in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (hereinafter, E.D.N.Y.) based on O'Leary's alleged police misconduct in an arson case. According to an E.D.N.Y. docket printout submitted in support of defendant's motion, the civil complaint was filed on June 1, 1998, and was answered by O'Leary and Suffolk County via the Suffolk County Attorney on June 18, 1998, more than a month before defendant's arrest. The Federal District Court ordered the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office to unseal its files related to the civil case in January 2001, and the case was ultimately settled in March 2001, after defendant's trial and sentencing for murder had concluded.

The federal complaint alleged, in pertinent part, that O'Leary coerced the plaintiff, Keith Schroeter, into confessing to third-degree arson charges by repeatedly striking Schroeter in the head with a telephone book while he was handcuffed and physically forcing him to sign a written confession. Defendant asserted that, because Detective O'Leary was part of the prosecution's team, the People had constructive knowledge and a duty to learn of these allegations during the prosecution of defendant's case. Defendant further claimed that, had this information been properly disclosed, he would have used it to impeach O'Leary's credibility at the suppression hearing or at trial. In opposition to defendant's motion, the People submitted an attorney affirmation averring that they had no actual knowledge of the allegations against O'Leary until the District Attorney's Office was ordered to unseal its files in January 2001, after defendant had been convicted and sentenced. The People argued in the alternative that, even if they had been aware of the allegations, the information did not constitute Brady material.

County Court denied defendant's motion without a hearing. The court concluded that constructive knowledge of O'Leary's alleged bad acts in a different case could not be imputed to the prosecution, and because the People demonstrated they had no actual knowledge of the federal action until after defendant had been convicted and sentenced, no Brady violation had occurred.

A Justice of the Appellate Division granted defendant leave to appeal (2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 81496[U] [2010] ), and that court reversed the County Court order and remitted the matter for a hearing (People v. Garrett, 106 A.D.3d 929, 930, 964 N.Y.S.2d 652 [2d Dept.2013] ). The Appellate Division determined that the civil allegations against O'Leary “constituted impeachment evidence” and that the People's failure to disclose them “may have denied the defendant the opportunity to conduct an investigation leading to additional exculpatory or impeaching evidence” (id. at 931, 964 N.Y.S.2d 652 ). The information was also material, according to the Appellate Division, because “the credibility of the detectives who obtained the defendant's confession was of central importance in [defendant's] case” and “other evidence...