People v. Novak

CourtNew York County Court
Citation971 N.Y.S.2d 403
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Paul NOVAK, Defendant.
Decision Date03 September 2013

Gary Greenwald, Esq., Greenwald Law Offices, Chester, for Defendant.

James R. Farrell, Sullivan County District Attorney, Stephen F. Lungen, Esq., Special Prosecutor, Monticello, for the People.

FRANK J. LaBUDA, J.

Defendant has requested the Court to allow a psychiatric expert witness, Dr. Kevin Smith, M.D. to observe the testimony of Scott Sherwood (hereinafter, "Sherwood"), and then testify on behalf of Defendant with regard to Sherwood's medical history as demonstrated by his medical records and treatment, and his opinion with regard to Sherwood's credibility for his taped interview and trial testimony and his observations of the witness at trial. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's request is granted in part with express limitations.

The cold case file of the death and arson of Catherine Novak was revived on April 4, 2012, when a young woman1 called the New York State Police in Liberty, New York, and recanted her statements and alibi for Paul Novak, her estranged paramour, and "confessed" to her role and knowledge of the murder of Catherine Novak, the estranged wife of the defendant, herein, Paul Novak. The Defendant was indicted on October 24, 2012 for the December 13, 2008, murder of his wife, and charged with murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, arson, burglary, larceny and insurance fraud. Sherwood was also indicted as a co-defendant and was charged with murder in the second degree, arson and burglary. After lengthy plea negotiations, Sherwood pleaded guilty on the eve of Novak's trial to a separate Superior Court Information, pursuant to a cooperation agreement,2 to conspiracy to commit murder, for which he agreed to testify against Defendant at trial, and for which he will receive a sentence of three to 12 years in state prison.3

Although Sherwood was a licensed and functioning paramedic and EMT in New York City, it is not disputed that Sherwood has a long, significant mental, psychological and emotional history, including depression, anxiety, and bi-polar disorder, and takes prescription medications for these disorders, including psychotropic medications. Defendant argues that it is necessary for his expert, Dr. Kevin Smith, to observe Sherwood's testimony so he can assist the defense with fashioning an appropriate cross-examination as to Sherwood's testimony, given his mental state and medications, and then testify on behalf of Defendant to explain Sherwood's veracity and vulnerability to suggestion when under stress due to his mental disorders.

It has long been established in New York that excluding a witness from the courtroom during the examination and testimony of other witnesses is at the sole discretion of the court. Philpot v. Fifth Ave. Coach Co., 142 A.D. 811, 128 N.Y.S. 35 [1st Dept.1911] ; People v. Cooke, 292 N.Y. 185, 54 N.E.2d 357 [1944]. While the Federal Rules of Evidence allow for an expert to observe the testimony of other witnesses during a trial, FRE §§ 615, 702. Under the federal rules, a party may request exclusion of an expert during the testimony of a lay, fact witness, but experts are generally allowed to remain in the courtroom during another expert's testimony. The New York rules of evidence, as well as case law, do not. Whether an expert witness may remain in the courtroom during other witness' testimony, expert or lay, is left to the sole discretion of the trial court. Although New York considered codifying the federal rules regarding allowing the presence of an expert witness to remain in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses, to date, no rules have been adopted; there is no statutory authority in New York on this issue.

The purpose of sequestration, or exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom during other witness' testimony, is to prevent a prospective witness from "being taught by hearing another's testimony." People v. Medure, 178 Misc.2d 878, 683 N.Y.S.2d 697 [Sup.Ct. Bronx Co.1998]. This is a particular concern when lay, fact witnesses listen to other lay, fact witnesses; the only safeguard to preventing later testifying witnesses from tailoring their testimony is to exclude them from the courtroom prior to giving their own testimony. The Court of Appeals has held, however, that "The same reasons for exclusion do not apply to expert witnesses." People v. Santana, 80 N.Y.2d 92, 587 N.Y.S.2d 570, 600 N.E.2d 201 [1992].

"[T]he presence in the courtroom of an expert witness who does not testify to the facts of the case but rather gives his opinion based on the testimony of others hardly seems suspect and will in most cases be beneficial, for he will be more likely to base his expert opinion on a more adequate understanding of the testimony as it evolves before the jury." Id.

* * *

"[W]ithout the assistance of a psychiatrist to ... present testimony, and to assist in preparing the cross-examination of a State's psychiatric witness, the risk of inaccurate resolution of sanity issues is extremely high." Id., at 99, 587 N.Y.S.2d 570, 600 N.E.2d 201.

Regardless of whether New York trial courts allow an expert to observe the trial testimony of other witnesses, expert or lay, the Court of Appeals, as well as the Appellate Divisions, have consistently held such a decision is in the discretion of the trial court, depending on the nature of the case as well as the proposed subject matter of the expert's testimony. Because there is no statutory scheme on this issue in New York, state and federal case decisions vary. For example, in affirming a decision by the Court of Appeals excluding a potential witness from the courtroom and finding no violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, the federal district court, in Baker v. Fischer, 2012 WL 1909286 [W.D.N.Y. 2012], stated,

The exclusion of potential witnesses during the testimony of other witnesses is routine during criminal trials, and it is important because it negates the possibility that their testimony will be tainted or influenced by their having observed other witness' testimony on the same or similar topics [Citations omitted]. Id., at 8.

* * *

... [T]he New York Court of Appeals reasonably found that the exclusion of [the potential witness] from the courtroom... did not contravene Sixth Amendment courtroom-closure jurisprudence. Id.

On the other hand, in Malek v. Federal Insurance Company, et al., 994 F.2d 49 [2nd Cir.1993], a civil matter, the plaintiffs requested that the court allow their fire expert to be present in the courtroom during the defendants' fire expert's testimony. They argued that their expert's presence was "necessary to assist ... in preparing cross [examination]." Id., at 54. The district court denied the plaintiffs' request and ordered all of the witnesses to leave the courtroom. Commenting on FRE § 615(3), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted, "The advisory committee notes specify that the exception [to sequestration of a witness] contemplates ‘an expert needed to advise counsel in the management of the litigation.’ " Id., emphasis added, citing, Trans World Metals, Inc. v. Southwire Co., 769 F.2d 902, 911 [2nd Cir.1985]. Finding that the district court erred in denying the plaintiffs' request, the Court stated,

Our review of the record reveals that [the defendant's expert's] testimony differed from his reports: [the expert] testified that the fire was an ‘intense fire’ but did not make that specific finding anywhere in his report. Since this was an important finding bearing on the question of arson and was not made in [the defendant's expert's] reports. [The plaintiffs' expert's] presence in the courtroom was important to the presentation of the [plaintiffs'] case.... Malek v. Federal Insurance Company, et al., 994 F.2d at 54.

There is no question that "[a criminal] defendant has a fundamental right to call witnesses in his own behalf." People v. Palmer, 272 A.D.2d 891, 709 N.Y.S.2d 716 [4th Dept.2000], citations omitted. It may be reversible error to preclude testimony of a criminal defendant's witness who was present during other witness' testimony, even when the witness violated an order of sequestration. Id. Reversible error is further supported when "the prosecutor [fails] to show how the People would have been prejudiced by having the witness testify." Id., citations omitted. The ultimate decision, however, is always left to the discretion of the trial court and based on the specifics of each case.

A court must consider if whether an opposing witness were permitted to listen to testimony prior to his own testimony, he would "ascertain points of difference between their testimonies, and could shape his own testimony to better advantage for his cause." People v. Medure, 178 Misc.2d 878, 880, 683 N.Y.S.2d 697 [Sup.Ct. Bronx Co.1998]. This standard assumes both witnesses will be testifying as to the same facts and have opposing views. See, Malek v. Federal Insurance Company, et al., supra. Despite this risk, and the difficulty counsel may encounter during cross-examination in exposing inconsistencies, inaccuracies and falsehoods, the federal rules state that experts whose "presence is shown to be essential" may not be excluded. People v. Medure, 178 Misc.2d at 881, 683 N.Y.S.2d 697. Although an essential witness can learn partiality in the courtroom, "the issuance of an order of exclusion [in New York] is committed to the discretion of the court and is not demandable as of right." Id., citations omitted. "[A] party opposing exclusion shoulders the burden of convincing the court, first, that a particular witness is essential and, second, that his presence will not prejudice the party opposed to his presence in the courtroom." Id., at 882, 683 N.Y.S.2d 697. Likewise, a party seeking exclusion must show how an expert's presence in the courtroom would prejudice their case. See, People v. Palmer, supra. I...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT