Table Of Content

0: were INCE couNTY ano Jey Street, Room 26.77 erook:ya, 128? #347-296-103., PAX £347-206-1293 sees FAK COVER GHERT “+444 Hon, Leslie Leach RK 718-520-2495 Administrative Judge, Quecas Suprene Court ADA donnetce Teatit FAK #718-286-5820 Queens County DA’s Office - Appeals Buren Kan Koby, Taq. FAH #212-529-9604 8, Bables fo Judge Matthew J. U’emic DECISION & ORDER - PEOPLE v JOUNEON, zND #2002/00 Octsber 28, 2006 7s Sending 14 pages, including sever sheet ++ potmeasa SROUNE COTO RA IEA eT me -2-120 Fopane Gout af te Bute of Bele Book ovtener 28, 2008 Hon. Bnthoay CY Angelis chist Clee Suorene Court, Cueens County Lzm0: Queena’ zouzacard Hae Carers, Ay 11LE 1366 RE: PEOPLE v TYRONE JOHNSON, IND $2002/00 Rear Mr. Diangelis ung erdex of the cont Tem forwarding the arigina? seq sion trea for nflants meray ra vanace his jadgment. of rane y by yous offs) Thank you Cur your soopazar ion vaxy bevy yourm, mattnew 3. % sie 4 he co: ean. teelie G, zeuch Roald L. xaby, Faq David Pressman, aq. Craries "Tastagzoasa, Esq Jelcetke Traill, E97 brsaReeeieTE CL JESrOrReee E-OIG.0" ESSE, MEMORANODUJU SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KEW YCRK COUNTY OF QUEENS CRIMINAL TERK FARSENT: HON, MATOHEW J.D’ mC DEgrston © ORDER dctober 26, 2108 > agate TYRONE JOHNSON, Tmo #29902/0U befendant was convicted of Varder in the Arcond Hegcee on July 17, 2003 and sentenced to 20 years te lige in prison on Septenber eoate this judymené puzauant to CEL aa, 2992 row mova te ¥ S440.10 to), idby G) and Ch}. The ovimacy bases for Use action are two meetings ¢f che cela? judge aid assigned ausistan. disceiet oaney waich took place on fecewber 12, 2092 ané duly 18, 2003, ourside of the presence of Lue defendant ani his atrorney. & hearang was crdeved on the motion an Lestirony received on august 22, 2006. ALL submiasions ca the motion with affidavits and exhibits are part of the record as well as che testimony of Judith Nemblatt, Eaq., Justice Jaime Rioa and Assiecant Viezrict Arkerney Buyus Roibetcia The motion ia deniad. 2Ibe ©-O1KG.A-SHG eee roses cShiked S172 gmne-22- : IMpInGs oF eacr on Peurvary 24, 2000, the deferdunt wae axceszed and charged tre Fekcusey $, 2029 murder uf Taroy Vann. pefendant vas represented oy atzomney Allen Excimer and tried before New fork Snare suprena vaurs dScice Jaime Rios ir May ZbE2 ane couvicted of 1 second degree mrdex Moverber 12, 2092, tae Quuens Cie_r.ct Atlomney congentad to varace the murder conviction as 2 reeult of Misconduct adattedly comtiLted by the erisl aseistanz, snd the Judgrent was vacated on Movember Md, 2002, in hig Letter te Juslice Rics and dafenae counsel consenving to the vacate aefendan:’s uu ckion, Quuwus Eivlrict Attorney ed thet his a ice would “pricx so aay retrial, conduct compzehansiva ce-axaminatiun ¢f avery expect of this case so 26 to fisc” be certain that the prosecution of the defendant is just: he cee wee aleced on the cvusl'a calendar for December 2¢, 2002 Sometime befcre that adjournment date, the case wan te- sesignad to Assistant Distsict Attorney Zugene Reiketeia who was Gineclad “Lo lok zt the whole ease from the ha ginning, take all and chene in all out’ (7) pol ore of Wz, Heibsteia’s najor concesns vas the oned'hility of a witness an the cage, Huney Haney, who hed recanted bis cesticoay aud, mewaTbee, " neterences aye te the Leauseript of thw August 29, RCE nesting bred JecINChLet £-SHEO CREE COMM OFF 9008-2 LC 9 germscr retractet the regantatsoa. As the adjouznod dacs eppeosched, the presecubion, realizing he was ac a 2 nearly ready vor el, ceatact dedense counsel Brenner to advise bic so. Since Me. Srenner was a ate tats time gesccicing Law ia Gonneceiout, both des agra: copLinuance Cf the case pasl December 16 and Mz. Brenner agrees t9 Ur. Peihste!n acjourning the case outside ot his presence. Ca December 22, 2002, Mk. Reibscein vent to dustice Rios! courtreex, and was esonnel to charbers wnare he. ected oy court entered the judge’e office and advized him of the need for and fs acreement to en adiournnel pat fecesher Lich Accorc:ne to Mr. Rwibstein, the judge asxed when Lie vase would ready for trial and Mr, Reibstein explained he was investigating the case, amtluding questions akout the credibility ahd ef Lhe witrese Eenzy Manley and that ihe juuge vo! doubts 2s to the betievability of that vitiess, including some LaLk abour Manloy’s testincry about cars at the oxime scene, ADA Reinsvein renewbera tse rest of the about a Las Vegas vecetion and mtual ecqusincances. cuatice Rios, jn turn, xamenbers He. Reabstein being announaed end entering his cffice, Re thes edvived the judyc of Ais need for an adjournment Ard Use cangeas, of Mx. Beenner co kis making the reguesn. The iedga has no other reccllectior at the uesting wea Lsmeecerete aL ASTOR ALEC ERROR PEOPLE y 30KKSON Me. Memblatt, whe was Justice Zlos" prinsipa® lay clerk jentera the tine and hed been in his employ aince Janvazy 1994, izferentiy. She could only hese dustice Rice, sot nesting qu: ADA keibstela, and recounts something of a sclilogry vbure judge von calking basically in a nazzative reshcon where 7 going through Me. danley’s testiseny and explaining acw, in uis opiates, it coutdatt poss:biy have hannened =he = way - the eurner ut ivsue in chis case could ro: possibly have hapzened the way Monty aanlay vestified to" (7, p.12) and thet “the photogsaphe proved thet anley wus aol telling the truth” @, p.7). mblene cht nol head acy sma_i calk, nor, appavently, cid y mention of 4 vonsert adjournnent, She aise sade aa nenocaada ef this meezing cn five post-it notes en Lecenioe- 6, 2002, the case appeared on the scuct onder uni vas adjoursed enti] aié—Jamvary 2003, due to the fact that the People were still irvesticating the case. Tae defendaat’s sted of second trial bagan en guns 36, 2003 and ae was again conv murd=r on Guly 1%, 2903 \ duly 18, 2003, the day efter the conviction, Mr, Reibsteia remenbere going to Justice Ring’ courtcoom Ly pick yp his exhizits sod encountering the judge whe steted, 1a aun and gubstence, thet “E aught bave Lecuble with the appellate Civision because of ny that 4 had been vourhing for witnesses” (T, p.152) mation a sesaepscraresan sccraseies Come: e@kndd PTR? oMne-se-120 PEOPLE = JOENSON In cel... Rage §., and that he was slighted by the <emark (7, p.162i, custise Rica agein has 2a “apecific reco" lection” of this, wuz adnita he “may W Bin a one Linger” uo as te “bring him dows to each” a: ce from the Location cf sustice Rios, ws. maablatt he potayy Retbstein’s mewory of what muppe On Avril 19, 2004, Jadith Heqslatt wes tized ky Jestice Rios, ard ou April 23, 2004, she Files a complaint against the judge with LLe Sou York State Commission oa cud ag, anorg onaer things, Judiedal aiscondict as 2 resul: of the Decender 12, 2002 and July 18, 293 neetings hezween Justiea Rice aad Acatatute Districr Atnorney Rethstein, CONCLUSIONS OF LAH Detendant’s motion to upset bis murder co: tien requires au three Qtstincl claime: (2) whether he was deprived. 9! avalysis hiv constitutaoral right to be present his to Assdazant arial when dustice Rios spoke about the trial evidenc: Disteicl ALtoeney Reibstein on December 12, 292; (2) whether be nae ceprived of hia sight to counsel both on Deconber 22, 2002 anc wan the juaga decided the peosecutar's witness vauching on duty 7 and (3) Whether the two meekings deprived hin of a tais trial before an unbiased judge bats bseose“erosnn Ueesaceule 2-ONE.¢ E-saeh nono. tsze 9208-€2-120 PEOPLE v JOENSEN Ap _#z0n2 08 vags 1. Bight to ke psesent ap nrfal. B criminal deferdast has a rigat to be prt at at alt vy Stean, stages GE hie suis! (Beeplo v Nokes, 79 NE2d E56; Peapl : A Nad 389.1; GPL 260.20), which Includes, cf vcurse, the segnenzs cf the trial from jury impanelment to verdict; bor also inslules euuillary prevesdiags where the presence af @ defendant beara 4 substantial celatiorsnip to bis ao‘Tizy to defend vinse against che charges (ecopie v Norales, 30 BY2¢ @8t). Thue, scvusee absent from enciliary proceedings in which the lack of his particular knowledge and unique dapat will afgect the gaimmess or tine convictions. the patoone of the tase a keouledge of aie 3 An Gaiugl Mucrings (Peuple v Aikens, 208 Anza 998), the ability lu dany & viviouw pra-trsa. vunar IPanple v Eagleton, 267 a52d 2621 or te give input on his justification defense {Poopl2 v douglas, 28 ADSM AT) ave sil required reversal. ta sceh caues. a0 prejudice need be shown by the defenclans and his @ denial of the right to be present during a materia pact crsmnal proceedings xequires reversal or vacatus of the cemvicion (ee wedi, 68 wv2a 759) Fowever, whee ancillary proceedings de not séfect the fairness of the cutcone or where the bene#it of presence te the dsfencant. ia insubstantial, ence proceedings are aut micerial aed becerasor2r0+0 ASEISSSUE £/OEMS.O'P-YALO-ORUHOME F122 S002-SE- 2 PROPLE 7 douA30% mp #2092) stages of the criminal trial, Yo prevail in s1c% casos a cefoncanz mest show P: ders] and state lav (People v eivdice under beth hailey, 166 an26 789) ‘Thus, a defendant's shserce from a deLecmination va he Fitness Lor trial (People v Koray 299 AU2d 386), an n_ganera icial cusetioning of rsiuctant witnesses [Feonle v Rabb, 226 26. aoQd 269), 4 child sueacabi lity neuriig (People v Merales, 305 450), and cecain instructions te jurors (fecpie v tuymac, 298 ab2d 576; Pecpie v Snith, 208 KO24 148) are not materia! proceadings requiring the defencerz’s presance. In this case, the presecator bad defense counse’s permiasion Lo cuguusl ait adjournaens in his absence, a5 a courtesy. To parkien nf the decenher 12, 20€7 meeting between kas proper, be prosecutor respecting the adjourn rules governing jadichal cantuct (22 NYCRR 100.3 fBi[61: and under al lew (Seeple y Martinez, 254 AD2a 489) appsilate desis: dustice Rios The question axises, however, aa te whethe faalings about tne testimory of Henry Banley and expoaitios ef tl ee material sta discussion of photographic exhibits constiti tional and the proceedings at which cefendanc hed a cons stavutory right to be present. The judge himself is of the upanion that euch a digeussion wcyid be inproper 1Z, p.2i2}, yet peed prsgaece7ete su JSETIGRLHE COMMA," SUNOCO G8 Sone-ea. PEOPLE y JORNEON amb _#2002/09 Sane © of dupropes Anpropriety does act squal maleciality. Precede: gx parte judicial coqwersations with jurors (eople 7 nanonty 2 D362 ADde 696; see ales Rushes v Spats, Benpie v Moran, 12 464 US 114}, and prozecutors (U.3. 7 Dales, 122 F.2d 17 at 499) Jigme J, Keane, 1995 Ws 725096 IEDNY, 1995); s'eople v7 dartinuz, ide quidance. In gash of these cazes courts 207 AD2@ 585) prov nave found the commund ons inpcoper bat nol :evessible becarse the cormunications did cot take place at ¢ meteria® slage uf te criminal proceediaga In this case, tne conversetion of Cesenber 12, 20¢2 started dvigted. Critical to the inquizy Lhea, proparty kat cextain! 4a whether Juslice Rics nes coaching UE, Reibste:n - in eesence, torial fc conducting a the prosesuter - ae cleimed by the wefenee; ox simily giving sn unsolicited opinion of the witness Henlay’s testimony in response t2 the prosecutor’ s explanation uf why Se newded woze time Lo be ready gor teial. ds, Wemplatt testified that it was the former; tr. Reibstein, but thar it wes che latex, Justice Rios did nor recall anythi: the vaguasn for a enneent adjournment and email talk, and bis testimony adda little ut de clear, however, the teutinony oF Me. Mechlatt 1s colored by ime persuuai divdads for Justis Foe yuary, she Looked ab the jee as a taiered rheevd seazecrerasa serra howd gT922 9n0e-Se-iC