13 N.Y.3d 433 (2009)

A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a hearing on post-trial motions alleging juror misconduct or a Rosario violation when the defendant’s claims are based on hearsay or contradicted by substantial evidence.

Summary

Simon Samandarov was convicted of attempted murder and related charges. After the verdict, he moved to set it aside, alleging juror misconduct based on a newspaper article and hearsay information suggesting the jury improperly considered his alleged ties to the Russian Mob. He later moved to vacate his conviction based on a Rosario violation, claiming the prosecution failed to disclose police notes from interviews with a key witness, Jose Ramirez. The trial court denied both motions without a hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the hearings because Samandarov’s claims were not sufficiently supported and were contradicted by substantial evidence.

Facts

Alik Pinhasov was shot, and Jose Ramirez witnessed the aftermath, identifying Samandarov as potentially the shooter. Samandarov was arrested with the gun used in the shooting. Following the conviction, a newspaper article suggested jurors were aware of possible links between the shooting and a related murder, implying Russian Mob involvement. Samandarov’s counsel also claimed a neighbor, coworker to the jury foreperson, said the jury discussed Samandarov’s alleged mob ties. Later, Ramirez provided an affidavit claiming police detectives took notes during multiple interviews, which were not disclosed to the defense. He later recanted this affidavit.

Procedural History

Samandarov was convicted in Supreme Court. He moved to set aside the verdict (CPL 330.30) based on juror misconduct, which was denied without a hearing. He then moved to vacate the conviction (CPL 440.10) alleging a Rosario violation, also denied without a hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on the motion to set aside the verdict based on alleged juror misconduct.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on the motion to vacate the conviction based on an alleged Rosario violation.

Holding

1. No, because Samandarov failed to provide sufficient proof that the jurors were subject to any outside influence, and the claims were based on hearsay and speculation.
2. No, because the People presented substantial evidence contradicting Ramirez’s initial affidavit claiming undisclosed police notes existed, and the trial court reasonably found this evidence strong enough to make a hearing unnecessary.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that to impeach a jury verdict, there must be proof of an “outside influence” on the jurors. Here, the evidence suggested the jurors may have speculated about the case’s connection to the Russian Mob, but there was no evidence they received information from outside the courtroom. The defense itself raised the issue of possible stereotypes related to Russian-Americans during voir dire. Regarding the Rosario violation, the Court noted that while conflicting affidavits usually necessitate a hearing, the People submitted detailed proof that Ramirez’s initial affidavit was mistaken. This proof included affidavits from the ADA and other District Attorney’s office employees who were present at the interviews, stating that no police officers were present and no notes were taken. The Court emphasized a contemporaneous record showed the police closed the case the day of the crime, making later police interviews unlikely. The Court concluded it was theoretically possible a hearing could show otherwise, but the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding this possibility too slim to justify the burden and expense of a hearing. The dissent argued an evidentiary hearing was required because Ramirez’s initial affidavit raised a triable issue of fact regarding the existence of undisclosed Rosario material and its potential impact on the trial’s outcome.