The petitioner of the case is the Commissioner of Correction of Connecticut, John R. Manson. The respondent/defendant of the case is Nowell A. Brathwaite.
Case Issues
This case involves the issue of whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment, under the Due Process Clause requires the exclusion of pretrial evidence that was obtained by a police procedure that is deemed suggestive and unnecessary.
On September 30, 1974, three men wearing bandanas on their faces entered the house of a man and rounded up all the people in his house. The three men threatened the man of the house at gunpoint and told him that they will kill his children if he did not open his safe and give them all the valuables he had.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man complied and opened his safe. As he was opening his safe, the bandana on the face of one of the three armed men came loose and fell off. The man of the house got a good look at his face. But just the same the man of the house gave the armed men all the cash in his safe, a diamond ring and his coin collection which was worth around $40,000.00. The armed man whose face he saw was the same man who pointed a gun to his head all the while that he was opening the safe.
A month later, the man of the house was summoned by the Nassau police. They asked him to identify one of the armed men, the one whose face he saw, from a line up they had. The man of the house positively identified the armed man whose bandana fell from his face.
The Grand Jury of the Special Narcotics Courts voted an indictment against the accused men charging them with criminal possession of a weapon and conspiracy in violation of the Penal Law. In summary, a New York Criminal Lawyer the court alleges that a confidential informant contacted one of the accused, offering him an opportunity to rob drug dealers of a valuable supply of narcotics and cash. The accused allegedly accepted the informant’s offer and engaged the three accused men to be part of the robbery gang. The case detectives instructed the informant to tell the accused men the robbery location. It is alleged that the informant and the four accused men loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to that Bronx location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.
The accused men filed omnibus discovery motions, to which the court responded. The State also supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination. After examining the grand jury minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions. To enable the parties to fully brief the issue, the court found that release of certain portions of the grand jury minutes to the parties was necessary to assist the court in making the determination on the motion.
The Crime Investigator testified in the grand jury. In summary, the informant testified that he had continuous conversations with one of the accused; however, his testimony is devoid of any references to where he or his co-accused was located when they had the telephone conversations. Furthermore, it is apparent from the grand jury minutes that none of the face-to-face meetings between the informant and the accused men occurred in Manhattan. The sole reference to Manhattan in the informant’s testimony is contained in the informant’s recitation of why he was at a certain place at a certain time.
In 1997, officers assigned to the New York City Police Department’s Narcotics Division were conducting a short-term undercover operation for the purchase of heroin. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that at midnight in the area of Bronx County, the accused, while acting with two other male individuals, sold a quantity of heroin to an undercover police officer. The accused was arrested and charged by indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. More than a year after the undercover operation, a jury convicted the accused of both offenses.
The court adjudicated the accused, a second felony offender and entered judgment against him, imposing two indeterminate concurrent terms of twenty-two years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of eleven years. The basis of the adjudication was a judgment of conviction for attempted robbery, a class D violent felony offense.
The Appellate Division affirmed the accused man’s conviction, but modified his sentence to an indeterminate term of twelve years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of six years. The Court of Appeals denied the accused man’s application for leave to appeal.
Facts:
A security officer, a retired member of the New York City Police Department which the court takes judicial notice of, at the Long Island Jewish Hospital, was instructed by his security supervisor, via radio transmission, to proceed to a Children’s Hospital parking lot. He was told to locate a certain auto reportedly containing a handgun. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was also informed that the New York City Police Department had been notified and would arrive shortly. When he located the auto, he observed the handgun in a holster on the front seat. He immediately radioed his supervisor who replied that the police will be on the scene. The security officer checked the auto door and found it locked. The defendant himself, a security officer at the Children’s Hospital, arrived on the scene and saw the responding uniformed security officer standing by his auto. Defendant, without prodding, told the security officer that the auto was his. He then opened the auto door and gave the gun to the security officer.
Defendant then left the scene. The New York City police arrived within minutes, and the responding security officer reported his findings and handed the gun to the police. Defendant then returned to the scene. A New York City Police Officer asked the defendant if the auto was his; defendant replied affirmatively. The officer then asked defendant if he had a permit for the gun. Defendant replied he did not. The police officer then placed the defendant under arrest. While in a police car on the way to the police station defendant was read his Miranda warnings. He then told the officer that he had gotten the gun down south.
Defendant allegedly fired a handgun at two individuals, who just prior to his firing, had fired a handgun at him causing him serious physical injury; handgun crimes.
Defendant was charged with two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree and one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree for.
Subsequently, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant requested that the defense of justification be charged and that the presumption not charged. Both requests were denied.
The Facts:
Defendant, his brother, and another man entered the house of a woman and robbed her at gunpoint. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman identified defendant as the one who wielded the gun during the robbery. A police officer was on patrol when he saw three men run out of the woman’s house, followed by her screaming for help. The officer gave chase and managed to arrest the brother, who was found to have a loaded revolver in his front pocket. The brother provided defendant’s name and stated that the defendant had placed the gun in his pocket while they fled the woman’s residence.
Thereafter, defendant was arrested at his home. Upon arrest, defendant stated that the arresting officers got nothing on him and that they got the gun of his brother.
Three men committed class B felonies involving narcotics and were sentenced to undetermined prison terms under the Rockefeller drug laws which governed sentencing of drug offenders. A New York Criminal Lawyer said two of them received sentences of 2 to 6 years and the other man was sentenced with 5 to 10 years. All were paroled but violated it and all of them were sent back to prison. After the enactment of the drug law reform act of 2009, the three men applied for resentencing.
Based on records, the drug law reform act of 2009 allows certain prisoners sentenced under the so-called Rockefeller drug laws to be resentenced. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court hold that prisoners who have been paroled and then re-incarcerated for violating their parole are not for that reason to banned from seeking relief under the law.
Further, the drug law reform act of 2009 is codified. It permits people imprisoned for class B drug felonies committed while the Rockefeller Drug Laws were in force to apply to be resentenced under the current, less severe, sentencing regime. It was stated that any person in the custody of the department of correctional services convicted of a class B felony offense defined in the law which was committed prior to January thirteenth, who is serving an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term of more than three years, may except as provided in the law, upon notice to the appropriate district attorney, apply to be resentenced to a determinate sentence in accordance with sections of the penal law in the court which imposed the sentence.
The accused parties filed motions to dismiss the charges against them of criminal solicitation on the ground that there exists some jurisdictional or legal impediment to their conviction and on the ground that the accusatory instruments are defective. The Court grants the motions to dismiss the charges of criminal solicitation.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said all of the accused were arrested on various streets in the City of Rochester allegedly attempting to buy small amounts of marijuana. The place has become known as open-air drug markets where marijuana, cocaine and heroin can be purchased on the streets. In some areas cocaine possession and heroin possession with intent to sell are rampant. Those who live and work in those areas have become frustrated at the misuse of their neighborhoods for drug activity, that activity bringing with it increased public safety concerns for themselves and their families. The potential for violence in connection with the open-air drug trafficking was illustrated and underscored with the murder of a resident of the surrounding suburb of Penfield, New York. He was shot to death while reportedly attempting to purchase marijuana in one of the open-air drug markets.
In response to the public safety concerns of the neighborhoods, and in direct response to the murder, the City of Rochester Police Department began to station undercover police officers on the various streets with reputations for being open-air drug markets (drug possession). The officers then arrested individuals who approached them attempting to buy marijuana and other drugs. In the cases before the Court, all of the accused were charged with criminal solicitation in the fifth degree, a violation punishable by a maximum of 15 days in jail. The information alleges either that the accused were soliciting the officers to sell them marijuana, or were attempting to buy a marijuana-type substance or fake marijuana.
A nine-year veteran police officer was on patrol one evening when he responded to a radio communication of a man with a gun wearing a brown jacket on the corner of 121st Street and Seventh Avenue. When he arrived at the location, he exited his vehicle and spoke, first with a woman, and then with a man sitting in front of 2027 Seventh Avenue.
About 15 minutes after his arrival while he was still looking for the man described in the radio report, the officer observed defendant exit the door on the left side of the vestibule at 2027 Seventh Avenue, which was the entrance to a social club. A New York Criminal Lawyer said at the time, the officer was approximately five feet in front of defendant at whom he was looking directly. Defendant was then holding a packet of three by six inch white envelopes in one hand and a black plastic bag in the other. When he looked up and saw the officer, defendant was startled, jumped back, and immediately placed the stack of white envelopes in a plastic bag.
Thereafter, the officer approached defendant and asked him what he had put in the bag. Defendant replied, “I put nothing in the bag.” Nonetheless, it was apparent to the officer, with hundreds of narcotics arrests experiences where approximately a dozen of which were made in the immediate vicinity of the social club known for its drug activities, something was in the bag since the bottom was pressed downward. The officer told defendant that he had seen him put a stack of envelopes in the bag, but defendant insisted, “I didn’t put anything in the bag.”
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog