 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
NY2D COURTROOM WIFE OFFICER CLOSURE EXCLUDING SUPRA APPELLATE UNDERCOVER OFFICER TESTIMONY FAMILY MEMBERS EXCLUSION DEFENDANT TESTIFYING PUBLICATION REVERSE RESPONDENT REPORTER JUDGE BUY-AND-BUST SUBSTANCE JUROR KIN KAN RAMOS SUPPORT SAFETY HINTON HEARING NEIGHBORHOOD DRUGS |
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. MILTON NIEVES, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 426, 683 N.E.2d 764, 660 N.Y.S.2d 858 (1997).
July 1, 1997
(Case Commentary by the Editorial Board)
1 No. 140 (1997 NY Int. 132)
Decided July 1, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Steven Berko, for appellant.
Grace Vee, for respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
In an appeal centering on the issue of courtroom closure during an
undercover officer's testimony in a "buy-and-bust" case, we conclude
that the record was insufficient to establish a substantial
probability that the officer's safety would be jeopardized by allowing
defendant's wife and children to remain in the courtroom. Their
exclusion therefore violated defendant's constitutional right to a
public trial, requiring reversal of the Appellate Division's order and
a new trial.
Defendant was arrested for allegedly selling two glassine envelopes of
heroin to an undercover officer for $26 at 166th Street between
Amsterdam and Edgecomb Avenues in Manhattan. Over objection, the
prosecutor moved to close the courtroom during the testimony of the
undercover officer.
The officer testified at the ensuing Hinton hearing (People v Hinton,
31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911) that he presently conducted
undercover buy-and-bust operations three to four times a week in the
Manhattan area between 155th to 180th Streets, specifically in the
location of 166th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, and that he feared for
his safety should his identity be revealed. He related a story he had
heard three years earlier about another undercover officer who was
shot after being recognized in this neighborhood. The officer further
testified that he did not work in the area of the courthouse and that
he had never encountered former "buy" subjects while there to testify.
He also used the regular courthouse elevator when testifying. The
officer expressed no concern about defendant's family members.
The court closed the courtroom during the undercover's testimony,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
