13 N.Y.3d 416 (2009)
A prosecutor’s summation that ventures well beyond the evidence, especially when combined with improperly admitted expert testimony, can deprive a defendant of a fair trial, warranting reversal of the conviction.
Summary
Phillip Riback, a pediatric neurologist, was convicted of multiple felonies and misdemeanors for sexual contact with young male patients. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that the prosecutor’s summation, coupled with the trial court’s admission of certain expert testimony, deprived Riback of a fair trial. The prosecutor’s remarks included suggesting Riback was a pedophile, implying uncharged victims existed, and commenting on the defendant’s use of lawyers and jury consultants. The Court of Appeals held that the cumulative effect of these improper comments, particularly given the inflammatory nature of the charges, created a reasonable possibility that the prosecutorial misconduct contributed to the verdict.
Facts
Defendant, a pediatric neurologist, was charged with sexual offenses against 14 young male patients between 1997 and 2002. Extensive media coverage surrounded his arrest. At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from the alleged victims, their parents, police investigators, a medical conduct investigator, a pediatric neurologist, and a psychologist specializing in sex offender treatment. The defense argued that any unusual behavior by Riback was to build rapport and that accusations were the result of suggestive questioning.
Procedural History
The jury convicted Riback. He moved to vacate the judgment based on new evidence and a post-trial diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome; the motion was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and order, reducing the sentence in the interest of justice. A dissenting Justice granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Hamill to testify about the meaning of “pedophilia,” “ephebophilia,” and “sexual fetish.”
2. Whether the prosecutor’s summation deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
Holding
1. No, because the trial judge did not err when he allowed Dr. Hamill to explain what the term “sexual fetish” means and to give some examples.
2. Yes, because the prosecutor’s summation, when combined with the improperly admitted expert testimony regarding “pedophilia,” ventured beyond the bounds of fair comment and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court’s decision to allow expert testimony on the definition of “sexual fetish” was permissible, as it was beyond the ken of the average juror and potentially useful in evaluating the evidence. However, allowing Dr. Hamill to define “pedophilia” was deemed erroneous, as the information was likely already known to the jurors.
The court emphasized the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s misconduct during summation. The prosecutor linked the defendant to the term “pedophile,” implied the existence of numerous uncharged victims, commented on the difficulty for children to testify, and suggested the defendant was manipulating the jury through wealth. The court stated, “After a certain point, though, the cumulative effect of a prosecutor’s improper comments during summation may overwhelm a defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
The Court referenced the dissenting Justice’s opinion in the Appellate Division: “these numerous ‘summation misstatements of fact and law . . . when combined with the opinion by the prosecutor that defendant’s acts were those of a pedophile . . . rose to such a level that defendant was deprived of the fair trial to which he was entitled.’”
Ultimately, the Court concluded that, given the inflammatory nature of the charges, there was a reasonable possibility that the prosecutorial misconduct contributed to the verdict, thus warranting a new trial.