THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. GARY STEADMAN, APPELLANT. / THE PEOPLE &C.,
RESPONDENT, v. RAYMOND BLAIR, APPELLANT.
82 N.Y.2d 1, 623 N.E.2d 509, 603 N.Y.S.2d 382 (1993).
October 12, 1993
2 No. 170 (1993 NY Int. 181)
2 No. 171 (1993 NY Int. 181)
Decided October 12, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
No. 170:
Sally Wasserman, for Appellant.
Elizabeth M. Fox, for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
No. 171:
Randall D. Unger, for Appellant.
Elizabeth M. Fox, for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
SIMONS, J.:
Defendants have been convicted of manslaughter second degree and
criminal possession of a weapon second degree, charges resulting from
the death of Maxine Peterson on May 28, 1988. The prosecution's
principal witness against defendants, and the only one identifying
them, was Tony Malloy. Malloy admittedly had been a drug user and had
two prior felony convictions. At the time of trial, he was on
probation for one of the prior convictions and three open felony
charges were pending against him.
Defendants sought pre-trial disclosure of any promise of leniency made
to Malloy in exchange for his favorable testimony against them.
Although the prosecution revealed some arrangements made with Malloy,
it failed to advise defendants that Assistant District Attorney Dan
McCarthy, the trial assistants' superior, had in fact agreed with
Malloy's attorney that Malloy would not be required to go to prison on
the pending charges if he testified against defendants. Defendants
assert that McCarthy's agreement with Malloy's counsel was Brady
material and that the prosecution's failure to disclose it requires a
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. GARY STEADMAN, APPELLANT.
Defendants have been convicted of manslaughter second degree and criminal possession of a
The prosecution's principal witness against defendants, and the only one identifying them,
he was on probation for one of the prior convictions and three open felony charges were
Although the prosecution revealed some arrangements made with Malloy, it failed to advise
Defendants assert that McCarthy's agreement with Malloy's counsel was Brady material and that
We agree and therefore reverse the orders of the Appellate Division.
Malloy testified at trial that he was told by the District Attorney's office at the time he
Inasmuch as a conviction on any of the open charges would render Malloy a persistent felony
During the trial, the defense learned that McCarthy had promised Malloy's attorney, Jonathan
Defendants subpoenaed Latimer who testified that he and McCarthy had negotiated such an
Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment or for a new trial on the ground that there was an
The court reasoned that disclosure had been made during trial and that the manner of
Prosecutors occupy a dual role as advocates and as public officers and, as such, they are
This rule of fairness, rooted in the concept of constitutional due process, has been given
The prosecutor's duty is not lessened because Brady material may affect only the credibility
Moreover, after the defendants learned of the agreement and subpoenaed Latimer to testify,
|
