People v. Cwikla, 46 N.Y.2d 434 (1979)
A prosecutor must disclose to the defense any correspondence between the District Attorney’s office and the Parole Board regarding a prosecution witness’s cooperation, as it may affect the witness’s credibility, which is crucial for a fair trial.
Summary
Defendants Cwikla and Ford were convicted of burglary and possession of a dangerous instrument in connection with a burglary that resulted in the victim’s death. The prosecution’s key witness, Cox, an accomplice, testified he received no promises for his testimony. However, the prosecutor failed to disclose correspondence with the Parole Board indicating Cox’s cooperation and a request for leniency. The Court of Appeals held that this non-disclosure violated the defendants’ right to a fair trial because the correspondence could have influenced the jury’s assessment of Cox’s credibility. The court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial.
Facts
Cwikla, Ford, and Cox were involved in a burglary. The victim died after being bound and gagged with a handkerchief. Cox pleaded guilty to manslaughter and testified against Cwikla and Ford at their joint trial. During direct examination, Cox denied receiving any promises for his testimony but admitted requesting the Assistant District Attorney to write to the Parole Board on his behalf. Defense counsel requested the production of correspondence between the District Attorney’s office and the Parole Board concerning Cox, which was denied by the prosecutor and trial court.
Procedural History
Cwikla and Ford were convicted of burglary and possession of a dangerous instrument in the first trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences. Both defendants and the People were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
- Whether the prosecutor’s failure to disclose correspondence between the District Attorney’s office and the Parole Board concerning the prosecution’s key witness, Cox, violated the defendants’ right to a fair trial.
Holding
- Yes, because the correspondence could have affected the jury’s assessment of Cox’s credibility, and the prosecutor’s non-disclosure denied the defendant his right to a fair trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, which establish that the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence, including evidence affecting a witness’s credibility, to ensure a fair trial. The court reasoned that the undisclosed correspondence between the District Attorney’s office and the Parole Board regarding Cox could have led the jury to believe that Cox had a tacit understanding or expectation of leniency in exchange for his testimony, even if no explicit promise existed. The court quoted United States v. Agurs, stating, “When the prosecutor receives a specific and relevant request, the failure to make any response is seldom, if ever, excusable.” The court found the prosecutor’s conduct particularly inexcusable because he personally wrote to the Department of Correctional Services on Cox’s behalf and then denied knowing of any such correspondence. The court noted, “While in the present case the materials sought by defense counsel do not directly demonstrate the existence of an express promise, there is nonetheless a strong inference, at the very least, of an expectation of leniency which should have been presented to the jury for its consideration.” The Court also briefly addressed Ford’s arguments regarding pretrial identification procedures, upholding the trial court’s ruling that requiring Ford to wear a wig during the lineup was permissible to conform his appearance to that at the time of the crime. The court also upheld the introduction of prior lineup identifications under CPL 60.25, even though witnesses were barred from making in-court identifications due to a prior court order.