 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENSE ALIBI DEFENSE COUNSEL ATTORNEY WITHDRAWN TRIAL TESTIMONY BROWN SANDOVAL HEARING PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS COURT BURGOS-SANTOS IMPEACHMENT PRE-TRIAL SANDOVAL HEARING IMPEACH DEFENDANT NON-ALIBI DEFENSE APPELLANT RESPONDENT PROSECUTOR INTENDED TRIAL TESTIMONY REPRESENTATIONS DRUG TRANSACTION IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES JUDICIAL ADMISSION YORK REPORTS LUIS BURGOS-SANTOS TONY BROWN AFFIDAVIT PROSECUTION CHIEF JUDGE KAYE |
1 No. 55
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Tony Brown,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
1 No. 56
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Luis Burgos-Santos,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Case No. 55:
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 53
May 2, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
David J. Klem, for appellant.
Sandra E. Cavazos, for respondent. Case No. 56: Allen Fallek, for
appellant.
Lynetta M. St. Clair, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
LEVINE, J.:
The common issue in these appeals is whether defendants Tony Brown and
Luis Burgos-Santos were properly impeached at trial with prior
inconsistent statements made by defense counsel on their behalf. The
People impeached Brown with representations his attorney made at a
pre-trial Sandoval hearing concerning Brown's intended trial
testimony. Burgos-Santos was impeached with a withdrawn alibi notice
after he testified to a non-alibi defense. For the reasons that
follow, we conclude that the statements in Brown were properly used
for impeachment purposes, but that the statements in Burgos-Santos
were not.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
