People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 15 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 4811/1994.,4811/1994. |
| Citation | 998 N.Y.S.2d 307 (Table) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Robert JONES, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York (Christopher M. Joralemon, Goutam U. Jois and Darcy C. Harris, of counsel) and Thomas Hoffman, P.C., New York, for defendant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County (Robert J. Masters and Ushir Pandit, of counsel) for plaintiff.
According to defendant's current team of attorneys, this contentious post-conviction litigation “is about a man the justice system .... failed.” They vehemently argue that defendant is an “innocent man [who] was wrongly convicted of murder in a terrible miscarriage of justice” because of “false eyewitness identification[s]” (which now have been recanted), misconduct by the prosecutor and law enforcement officials, and the ineffective assistance of counsel.They claim that the “resulting injustice” to defendant “continues today uncorrected”—such that “[e]very day that goes by is another day that Mr. Jones spends in prison for a crime that he did not commit.” This is why, according to defense counsel, this Court “must vacate Mr. Jones' conviction.”
The People, matching the defense's dramatic rhetoric in this litigation, have argued, just as vehemently, that defendant is guilty and was properly tried and convicted of murder, and that the newly discovered evidence claims, the ineffective assistance of counsel claims and the various claims of misconduct are “desperate,” “outlandish” and meritless. The People also complain about the fact that the good name of law enforcement officials and prosecutors could be so easily besmirched by the simple expedient of filing a post-conviction motion “based upon the sheerest speculation”—reflecting “a troubling trend affecting [the legal] profession.”
Defendant's post-conviction motion places squarely on this Court's shoulders the “solemn responsibility” to “determine as best [it] could where the likelihood of truth lay,” at least as it relates to the recantation testimony (People v. Shilitano, 218 N.Y. 161, 180–181, 112 N.E. 733 (1916) (Cardozo, J., concurring). In considering the motion, the Court has reviewed and re-reviewed, in painstaking detail, the voluminous pleadings submitted by the parties in this litigation, the voluminous trial record, as well as the voluminous record of the CPL 440 hearing, including numerous exhibits and the testimony of ten witnesses who testified over a nine-day period. Upon this exhaustive comprehensive review, the Court finds that the newly discovered recantation evidence is not “true” (Shilitano at 170, 112 N.E. 733 ), and lacks “inherent believability” (People v. Wong, 11 A.D.3d 724, 725, 784 N.Y.S.2d 158 [3d Dept 2004] ), and therefore cannot “destroy the basis upon which the judgment of conviction rests” (Shilitano at 170, 112 N.E. 733 ). Because the Court also finds that defendant otherwise failed to demonstrate that he is actually innocent, that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, or that law enforcement officials or the People engaged in any misconduct or committed a Brady violation, the motion to vacate the judgment of conviction is denied in all respects.1
The Court recognizes that when an accused, innocent or not, is wrongfully convicted, a grievous wrong is committed not only against the accused but against the whole criminal justice system because, inter alia, the public's confidence in the administration of justice is seriously undermined. In this case, however, defendant was not wrongfully convicted and there was no miscarriage of justice. On the contrary, defendant received a fair trial while he was represented by an experienced attorney who provided meaningful representation and the effective assistance of counsel. And, in this case there is no good reason to think that an innocent man is in jail.
In 1996, a jury convicted defendant of murdering Antoine Stone. Nearly twenty years after the murder, defendant moved pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §§ 440.10(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h), to vacate his judgment of conviction. Defendant sets forth numerous claims challenging the judgment of conviction, including an actual innocence claim; a newly discovered evidence claim involving recanting witnesses who alleged prosecutorial and law enforcement misconduct; related Brady/Rosario claims; an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based upon trial counsel's failure to move for a mistrial when a detective blurted out at trial that the shell recovered from the crime scene matched the shell recovered from another homicide (the Rivera homicide); and a Brady claim related to the People's failure to disclose documents or information from the earlier unsolved Rivera homicide.2 The People opposed defendant's motion, arguing that defendant's claims were subject to mandatory procedural bars and were otherwise without merit. The People also argued that if the Court were inclined to conduct a hearing it should do so for the limited purpose of examining the credibility and reliability of the allegations in the recanting witness' sworn affidavits.
In an interim order, the Court granted defendant's motion only to the extent of ordering a hearing to examine the following issues: (1) the claim of alleged misconduct by law enforcement; (2) the claim of a Brady violation inasmuch as it was alleged that the prosecutor failed to disclose information to the defense that indicated that prior to trial one of the witnesses stated that she was unable to identify defendant as the perpetrator; (3) the claim of a Rosario violation inasmuch as it was alleged that the prosecutor failed to turn over records and an audio-tape of the investigating detectives' interview with the witness who alleged that she told law enforcement that she could not identify defendant as the perpetrator; (4) the claim of newly discovered evidence as it related to the recantation of trial testimony inasmuch as the recanting witnesses disavowed their testimonial observations and identifications of defendant; and, (5) the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as it related to counsel's failure to seek a mistrial after one of the investigating detectives blurted out at trial that the shell recovered from the crime scene matched a shell that was recovered from an unsolved murder (see Order dated September 11, 2013).3
Although defendant failed to properly notice in his Notice of Motion an additional ineffective assistance of counsel claim premised on counsel's failure to investigate, the Court, taking into consideration the Court of Appeals decision in People v. Oliveras, 21 N.Y.3d 339, 971 N.Y.S.2d 221, 993 N.E.2d 1241 (2013), exercised discretion to grant defendant's application to expand the scope of the CPL 440 hearing to determine whether counsel's failure to investigate a narcotics notebook recovered from an area next to the deceased, and his failure to investigate the aforementioned ballistics report, constituted the ineffective assistance of counsel (see Order dated February 4, 2014). Defendant also moved for disclosure of the Rivera homicide file, which motion the People initially opposed on the ground that the unsolved murder was still an open and “active” investigation. Following the CPL 440 hearing, however, the Court, with the consent of the parties, conducted in camera proceedings related to the Rivera file, reviewing it for the presence of possible Brady material. At its conclusion, the People, at the Court's request, disclosed several documents from the Rivera file to the defense, including documents indicating that a fingerprint lifted from a public boardwalk railing at the Rivera homicide was compared to defendant's fingerprint with negative results. Defendant contends that these documents, together with the ballistics link documents, constitute Brady material which the People failed to disclose prior to trial.
Pursuant to CPL 440.30(7), the Court now sets forth its findings of fact, its conclusions of law and the reasons for its determination denying defendant's motion to vacate the judgment on the grounds of actual innocence, newly discovered evidence, Rosario and Brady violations and the ineffective assistance of counsel.
In preparation for trial, defense attorney Barry Turner filed an omnibus motion seeking to, among other things, suppress defendant's many prejudicial statements, extremely prejudicial physical evidence and identification testimony. Counsel also moved to preclude the People from cross-examining defendant about his previous record, which included convictions for the sale of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a weapon. Because counsel made these applications, a court ordered a Mapp/Huntley/Wade/Dunaway hearing.
At the suppression hearing, counsel challenged the suggestiveness of the identification procedures (i.e., the photo arrays and the lineup identifications), the voluntariness of defendant's statements, as well as the propriety of defendant's warrantless arrest outside of his apartment. Defense counsel also challenged the execution of the search warrant that led to the recovery of a Ross bike, ammunition, a BB-gun, a gun cleaning kit, and a gun holster.
In Turner's opening statement to the jury, he argued that the case against defendant was “frought with reasonable doubt” [sic].That doubt, according to counsel, stemmed from two unreliable identifications of defendant. In this regard, counsel suggested that “it was so dark” that “no one could be certain of what they saw.” Specifically, trial counsel told the jury that Joan Purser's testimony would not provide any evidentiary value because she was uncertain now, and then, of the identity of the perpetrator. As to Philip Englebert, trial counsel stated that his identification testimony would be “totally...
To continue reading
Request your trial