Category: Recent Decisions

NY Court of Appeals Confronts a Tragic Case on Personhood

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On September 8, 2015, the N.Y. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in People v. Jorgensen, in which Jennifer Jorgensen is appealing her second-degree manslaughter conviction for recklessly causing the death of her daughter, who died as a result of a head-on car collision in May 2008, allegedly caused by Jorgensen’s reckless driving.

At the time of the accident, the victim at issue was in the seventh or eighth month of gestation in Jorgensen’s womb. As stated in the case summary, “Jorgensen’s baby was delivered alive by emergency Caesarean section less than two hours after the accident, but died six days later.”

In June 2009, the Suffolk County Prosecutor indicted Jorgensen on several charges, including the manslaughter charge relating to the death of her child. The first trial ended with a hung jury. In the second trial, the defendant was only convicted on the charge of manslaughter for the death of her daughter and the sentence of three to nine years in prison was imposed. The Appellate Division Second Department affirmed the manslaughter conviction.

As set out by N.Y. Penal Law § 125.00, “Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first [or second] degree, criminally negligent homicide, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree.” Penal Law § 125.05(1) adds that “‘[p]erson,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.”

This is indeed a very sad and tragic case. Jorgensen argues that her manslaughter conviction was contrary to law because her daughter had not been born (and so was not a “person”) at the time she (Jorgensen) allegedly engaged in reckless conduct. She adds that she consented to the Caesarean section in an effort to save her baby’s life. The Prosecutor is arguing that because Jorgensen’s daughter was born alive, the child was a person under the law and Jorgensen must bear criminal responsibility for recklessly causing her death.

Related Readings:

ICC Prosecutor Asked to Reconsider a Matter Involving Israel’s Blockade of Gaza

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On July 16, 2015, a 2-1 majority of Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a strongly worded decision finding what it termed numerous “material” errors in the ICC Prosecutor’s decision not to open a formal investigation of war crimes allegedly committed by members of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in May 2010 when they intercepted and boarded ships that were attempting to penetrate Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, on November 6, 2014 the ICC Prosecutor issued a report explaining that after months of review, she declined to open a formal investigation of the matter. The report was issued under Article 53(1) of the Rome Statute in response to a request of ICC State Parties, including the Union of Comoros, whose vessels were boarded by the IDF during the May 2010 incident. The report concluded that although there was a reasonable basis to believe that members of the IDF willfully killed ten of the 500+ passengers on one of the vessels, caused serious injury to several others, and committed outrages upon personal dignity of others, a formal investigation was unwarranted because the crimes involved, given the surrounding circumstances, would fail to meet the gravity requirement of Article 17(1)(d) of the Rome Statute.

In January 2015, the Union of Comoros invoked the opportunity provided by Article 53(3)(a) to request the Pre-Trial Chamber seized of the matter to review the Prosecutor’s decision not to proceed and to request reconsideration of the decision. Comoros’s application challenged several conclusions in the Prosecutor’s report.

In its July 16, 2015 decision, the Chamber’s majority discounted some of these challenges but agreed with several others regarding the Prosecutor’s alleged failure to properly address factors relevant to the gravity determination.

Addressing standard of review, the majority stated that a request pursuant to Article 53(3)(a) requires a Chamber “to exercise independent judicial oversight” and apply “exacting legal requirements.” It added that “[i]n the presence of several plausible explanations of the available information,” the Prosecutor must open an investigation so that she can “properly assess the relevant facts.”

Applying this standard, the majority faulted the Prosecutor for at times deciding against investigation of matters on which there were conflicting claims. Of particular importance, the majority suggested that the Prosecutor may have “willfully ignored” credible evidence that the IDF fired upon one of the vessels prior to boarding. Such evidence, if established, would support the proposition that there was a systematic plan to attack civilians on that vessel.

Accordingly, the Chamber issued a request to the Prosecutor to reconsider her decision not to investigate the situation.

The Chamber’s decision involves procedural issues regarding a Chamber’s Article 53(3)(a) review that will have to be resolved in the future. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Péter Kovács argued that, among other failings he perceived, the majority “introduced for the first time a standard for reviewing negative decisions undertaken [by a prosecutor pursuant to Article 53(1)] without explaining the legal basis for its endorsement.” In Judge Kovács’s view, “the Pre-Trial Chamber’s role is merely to make sure that the Prosecutor has not abused her discretion in arriving at her decision not to initiate an investigation ….” Reviewing the evidence and submissions, he concluded that the Prosecutor did not abuse her discretion in this matter.

NY Court of Appeals Overturns a Murder Conviction Because of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On July 1, 2015, the N.Y. Court of Appeals issued a 5-1 ruling regarding a prosecutor’s comments on summation that may overstate the probative value of DNA evidence presented at trial and defense counsel’s obligation to object to such comments. People v. Wright, No. 109, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05621 (July 1, 2015).

The case involved the murder and alleged rape of a woman in Rochester, N.Y., who was found dead of strangulation by means of a ligature, shortly after she had sexual intercourse. A Monroe County prosecutor pursued charges of intentional murder, felony murder, and rape. Defense counsel admitted in opening statement that defendant had intercourse with the victim around the time in question, but argued that this intercourse was consensual. Counsel also vigorously opposed the murder charges.

In its case in chief, the prosecution called three expert witnesses who testified about the potential scientific value in general of the different methods of DNA testing they employed. The experts also carefully explained the limited probative value that could be deduced from their analysis of the ligature and items relating to the victim’s sexual intercourse.

The jury rejected the rape and felony murder charges, but convicted the defendant of intentional murder, pursuant to Penal Law § 125.25(1). The trial court imposed a sentence of 25 years to life. By a 3-2 vote, the Appellate Division affirmed. People v. Wright, 982 N.Y.S. 2d 219, 115  A.D. 3d 1257 (App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2014).

In the July 1 ruling, all six Court of Appeals judges who participated in the case (including especially dissenting Judge Eugene Pigott) credited defense counsel for effectively eliciting from the prosecution’s expert witnesses during cross-examination the limited probative value their testimony provided regarding identifying the defendant as the person possibly responsible for the murder. The appeal therefore focused decisively on statements made by the prosecution on summation and defense counsel’s response (or lack thereof) to such comments.

Upon review of the record, the Court’s majority held that during summation the prosecution prejudicially overstated the probative value of the DNA evidence its own witnesses provided relating to the circumstances of the case. The Court identified several instances in which the prosecutor told the jury that expert testimony conclusively showed that defendant’s DNA was a match for that found on the ligature. The Court noted that these comments contravened what the experts had in fact stated: that DNA analysis was only able to show that the defendant’s DNA could not be excluded from that found on the ligature.

The Court determined that the prosecutor’s “apparent intent was to persuade the jury that the DNA established that defendant had committed the rape and murder, when the evidence did not, and could not, dispositively establish his guilt.” The Court further held that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance because it could not identify any tactical reason to excuse counsel’s “multiple failures” to object to the prosecutor’s “numerous misrepresentations of the evidence.”

In support of its ruling, the majority noted the significant impact that DNA evidence may have on a jury’s deliberations. It further concluded that aside from the expert testimony, evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction for second degree murder. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Appellate Division and remanded the case for a new trial.

Supreme Court Reverses Conviction in Facebook-Threats Case

In a follow up to our previous post, the Supreme Court has now decided Elonis v. United States, reversing the conviction based on threats the defendant posted on Facebook against his ex-wife and others.  The Court held it was error for the lower court to instruct the jurors that the defendant could be convicted if the posts would be considered by a reasonable person to be threatening, characterizing that standard as one of traditional civil negligence.  The Court did not address the First Amendment issues concerning the criminalization of Facebook posts.

Related Readings:

Brady: New Decision Holds Ethical Requirements are Broader Than Constitutional Requirements

In a clear, well-reasoned decision, the DC Court of Appeals has held that a prosecutor’s ethical responsibility to disclose exculpatory evidence is significantly broader than the Brady standard and does not contain a “materiality” requirement. While the decision is binding only on attorneys who practice in DC it will cover many federal prosecutors.

The case came to the court based on a report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility that had recommended a 30-day suspension for a federal prosecutor who violated Rule 3.8(a) of the DC Rules of Professional Conduct. The charges arose in a felony assault case involving a drive-by shooting where the defendant filed an alibi notice. The issue was the reliability of the identification; significantly, what the prosecutor failed to disclose was that the victim had said after the shooting, at the hospital, was that he did not know who shot him. The first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not agree. Although after the first trial a subsequently assigned prosecutor revealed the statement, the second trial ended in a conviction.

Among his various arguments, Kline argued that his ethical obligation was co-extensive with his Brady obligation. The court soundly rejected this argument, and its explanation for why post-conviction materiality cannot be used to judge ethical conduct is notably clear and to the point. The court also surveyed the various conflicting decisions nationwide about whether the two standards are co-extensive. Meanwhile, because of a confusing sentence in the commentary to the DC rule, the court determined not to sanction the prosecutor.

Related Readings: