83 N.Y.2d 663 (1994)
A trial court has discretion to allow a mid-testimony conference between a lawyer and a witness, even after unexpected testimony, provided appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the truth-seeking function of the trial and the defendant’s rights.
Summary
In People v. Branch, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court abused its discretion by allowing a prosecutor to have a private conference with a witness during direct examination after the witness gave unexpected testimony. The court held that the trial court acted within its discretion because it implemented sufficient safeguards. The court emphasized that trial courts have broad discretion in managing trials, and appellate courts should not substitute their judgment unless there was a clear legal error, particularly when conflicting facts and inferences reasonably support the trial court’s decision.
Facts
Lamont Branch was charged with murder. Thomas Edwards, a key prosecution witness, initially told investigators and the Grand Jury that he saw Branch carrying a gun into the victim’s apartment. At trial, Edwards unexpectedly testified that Branch’s companion, not Branch, carried the gun. The prosecutor requested a recess to speak with Edwards, expressing concern that Edwards had been intimidated by Branch’s family outside the courtroom. The trial court granted the recess, informing both attorneys that Edwards could be cross-examined about the recess and the conversation, and that Edwards would be informed he was not required to speak to the prosecutor. After the recess, Edwards changed his testimony again, stating that Branch had been carrying the gun.
Procedural History
Branch was convicted of murder, burglary, and criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to confer with Edwards. Branch appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the prosecutor to have a brief private conference with a witness during direct examination after that witness gave an unexpected and potentially damaging response.
Holding
No, because the trial court acted within its discretion in permitting such a conference to take place with appropriate safeguards.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that while uninterrupted testimony is generally preferred, trial courts have discretion to allow attorney-witness conferences. The court emphasized the importance of the trial court’s role in managing the trial to ensure the truth-seeking function is not impaired. The court noted that the trial judge was confronted with a situation where a witness may have been testifying falsely due to intimidation, and the judge chose a middle path by allowing the conference while implementing safeguards. These safeguards included informing the jury about the recess, barring the prosecution from introducing details about why Edwards changed his story, and allowing the defense to cross-examine the witness about the conference. The court cited cases from other jurisdictions supporting the trial court’s authority to allow mid-testimony conferences when safeguards are in place. The court stated, “To unduly limit a trial court’s discretionary power in matters concerning trial management increases the likelihood that rigid rules will replace common sense and that the truth-seeking function of a trial will be impaired not advanced.” The dissent argued that such conferences pose a risk to the truth-seeking process and should only be permitted when necessary and with proper monitoring, suggesting an in camera conference as a less intrusive alternative. The dissent stressed that the burden should not be on the defense to uncover potential coaching through cross-examination when it was the prosecution’s witness who changed their testimony.