People v. Adams, 20 N.Y.3d 608 (2013)
A public prosecutor should be removed only to protect a defendant from actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence; however, in rare situations, the appearance of impropriety itself is a ground for disqualification when the appearance is such as to discourage public confidence in government and the system of law.
Summary
Defendant was convicted of aggravated harassment for sending offensive text messages to a City Court Judge, his neighbor and ex-paramour. He argued the District Attorney should have been disqualified due to a conflict of interest because the prosecutor gave undue weight to the victim’s wishes, as she was a judge. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that while no actual impropriety occurred, the appearance of impropriety was unacceptably great because the District Attorney’s office refused to offer a reduced charge because the complainant was a sitting judge who demanded that the matter go to trial, rather than because a trial was, in its own disinterested judgment, appropriate. This created the appearance that the prosecutor did not exercise pretrial prosecutorial discretion in an evenhanded manner.
Facts
Defendant sent vulgar text messages to the complainant, a Rochester City Court Judge, who was also his neighbor and former lover. He was charged with aggravated harassment. All Rochester City Court Judges recused themselves. The defense unsuccessfully sought a plea deal. The defense moved to disqualify the Monroe County District Attorney, arguing a conflict of interest and actual prejudice, alleging that the DA was giving undue weight to the wishes of the victim because of her position as judge. The District Attorney’s office denied the allegation, but did not specifically rebut the claim that it consistently offered to accept pleas to a reduced charge in comparable cases, or offer an example of any circumstance when it had refused to offer a plea to a violation or agree to dispose of the case by ACD in a comparable misdemeanor case.
Procedural History
Defendant was charged in Rochester City Court. The City Court denied the motion to disqualify the District Attorney, but assigned new defense counsel. Defendant renewed the motion in County Court, which was also denied. Defendant was convicted in City Court. The County Court affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the District Attorney’s office should have been disqualified from prosecuting the defendant because there was an appearance of impropriety due to the complainant’s position as a judge?
Holding
Yes, because the record provides an objective basis to question whether the prosecutor exercised pretrial prosecutorial discretion in an evenhanded manner, based on the merits of the case or other legitimate prosecutorial concerns, thus creating an appearance of impropriety.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the general rule that a public prosecutor should be removed only to protect a defendant from actual prejudice or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence, citing Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 NY2d 46, 55 (1983). However, it recognized the rare exception where the appearance of impropriety is so significant that it discourages public confidence in the government and the system of law, citing People v Zimmer, 51 NY2d 390, 396 (1980).
The Court found that while no actual impropriety occurred, there was an unacceptable appearance of impropriety. The District Attorney’s office appeared to refuse a reduced charge because the complainant was a sitting judge who wanted a trial, not based on the merits of the case. The Court emphasized that the charges were not unique and involved a common scenario in harassment cases. The original defense counsel’s affidavit stated that the District Attorney’s office took a much harder stance than usual in similar cases and that the District Attorney’s office seemed constrained in how they could handle this matter due to the position of the complainant.
The Court found the District Attorney’s office’s response, consisting of conclusory denials without providing examples of comparable cases, failed to dispel the appearance of inappropriate disparate treatment. As the Court stated, “Defendant’s original counsel from the Public Defender’s office, who had represented defendants in cases involving this District Attorney’s office for more than a decade, averred that he had never before seen the office take such a hard-line position in a case involving comparable charges and a similar defendant.” Because of this failure to dispel the appearance of impropriety, the Court concluded that disqualification was required.