People v. Washington

Decision Date01 May 2007
Docket Number925.
Citation835 N.Y.S.2d 142,2007 NY Slip Op 03771,40 A.D.3d 228
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CALVIN WASHINGTON, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

The court providently exercised its discretion when it permitted two undercover officers to testify using aliases, and withheld their true names from defense counsel. The People's showing of an overriding interest justifying partial closure of the courtroom (a ruling not challenged on appeal), also satisfied the People's burden, under People v Waver (3 NY3d 748 [2004]), of establishing a need for the officers' anonymity (see People v Smith, 33 AD3d 462 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 849 [2007]). The court's determination did not violate defendant's right of confrontation (see United States v Rangel, 534 F2d 147, 148 [9th Cir 1976], cert denied 429 US 854 [1976]). "Defendant has not demonstrated that, as a practical matter, knowledge of an officer's name would open any `avenues of in-court examination and out-of-court investigation' not already opened by knowledge of his shield number" (People v Granger, 26 AD3d 268, 269 [2006] [citation omitted], lv denied 6 NY3d 894 [2006], quoting Smith v Illinois, 390 US 129, 131 [1968]). The true names would have had no discernible practical value. We note that defendant would not have been able to use those names to identify other cases involving these officers, because the officers never used their true names when testifying. Furthermore, the People's obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence would have tended to protect defendant's right to impeach the officers. The court also properly exercised its discretion when it determined that counsel's offer to keep the officers' true names secret from his client or anyone else could not guarantee that the secrecy would not be compromised.

Concur — Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Y.A. Mullings Corp. v. Hall
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • September 13, 2021
    ...; and when knowledge of a police officer's shield number already opens an avenue of investigation to a defendant. People v. Washington , 40 A.D.3d 228, 229, 835 N.Y.S.2d 142 (1st Dept.), leave to appeal denied , 9 N.Y.3d 927, 844 N.Y.S.2d 182, 875 N.E.2d 901 (2007). Petitioner has not ident......
  • People v. Wilkerson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 3, 2012
    ...only knowing the officer's shield number, and the ruling did not violate defendant's right of confrontation ( see People v. Washington, 40 A.D.3d 228, 835 N.Y.S.2d 142 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 927, 844 N.Y.S.2d 182, 875 N.E.2d 901 [2007] ). Defendant did not preserve his claims regarding......
  • People v. McNab
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 8, 2011
    ...), and defendant failed to establish that only knowing the officer's shield number caused him any prejudice ( see People v. Washington, 40 A.D.3d 228, 835 N.Y.S.2d 142 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 927, 844 N.Y.S.2d 182, 875 N.E.2d 901 [2007] ). We also reject defendant's claim that use of th......
  • Y.A. Mullings Corp. v. Hall
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • September 13, 2021
    ...and when knowledge of a police officer's shield number already opens an avenue of investigation to a defendant. People v. Washington, 40 A.D.3d 228, 229 (1st Dept.), leave to appeal denied, 9 N.Y.3d 927 (2007). Petitioner has not identified any of these factors on this motion practice. A wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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