New York Law Review

Tag: Attorney Notification

  • People v. Wilson, 89 N.Y.2d 754 (1997): Right to Counsel at Investigatory Lineup

    People v. Wilson, 89 N.Y.2d 754 (1997)

    Once a suspect is represented by counsel, even on an unrelated charge, police cannot conduct an investigatory lineup without making reasonable efforts to notify and secure the attorney’s presence, absent exigent circumstances.

    Summary

    Eric Wilson, arrested on Brooklyn charges, was identified in a lineup as the perpetrator of a Queens homicide. Wilson’s attorney on the Brooklyn charges informed Queens detectives that he also represented Wilson on the Queens matter and that no questioning or lineups should occur without him. Despite this, police conducted a lineup without notifying the attorney, and Wilson was identified. The New York Court of Appeals held that because Wilson was represented by counsel, the lineup conducted without notifying counsel violated his right to counsel, requiring suppression of the identification. The Court emphasized the importance of affording a defendant’s attorney the opportunity to be present at critical stages of the investigation.

    Facts

    Defendant Eric Wilson was arrested on Brooklyn charges of criminal possession of a stolen vehicle and a weapon. The weapon was linked to a Queens homicide. An eyewitness identified Wilson’s photo as being involved in the Queens shooting. Wilson’s attorney, Norman Berle, representing him on the Brooklyn charges, informed Queens detectives that he also represented Wilson regarding the Queens matter and that no questioning or lineups should occur without his presence. The Brooklyn charges were dismissed, and Queens detectives took Wilson into custody. Advised of his Miranda rights, Wilson waived them and denied knowledge of the homicide. A lineup was conducted without notifying Berle, and Wilson was identified as the shooter.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Wilson’s motion to suppress the lineup identification, finding that the attorney-client relationship terminated with the dismissal of the Brooklyn charges. Wilson was convicted of murder and other charges. The Appellate Division reversed, granting the motion to suppress and ordering a new trial, allowing the People to establish an independent source for the in-court identification. The Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an investigatory lineup conducted without notifying a suspect’s attorney, after the attorney informed police of their representation and requested their presence at any questioning or lineups, violates the suspect’s right to counsel.

    Holding

    Yes, because once a suspect is actually represented by counsel, a waiver of the right to counsel without the attorney present is ineffective, and the police are obligated to make reasonable efforts to notify counsel of an impending lineup, absent exigent circumstances.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on the principle that while a suspect has no constitutional right to counsel at a pre-indictment lineup, if a suspect already has counsel, that attorney may not be excluded from the lineup proceedings. The Court found that attorney Berle’s notification to the Queens detectives that he represented Wilson on the Queens matter created a duty for the police to notify Berle of the lineup. The Court cited People v. LaClere, 76 N.Y.2d 670 (1990), emphasizing that the police took the risk that the evidence would be suppressed by conducting the lineup without notice to counsel. The Court also noted that no exigent circumstances justified proceeding without counsel. The Court reasoned that once an attorney-client relationship is established and communicated to law enforcement, the police cannot disregard the attorney’s request to be present. Allowing a lineup without notifying known counsel undermines the protections afforded by the right to counsel. The court emphasized, “In conducting the lineup in these circumstances, without some notice or other legally recognized excusal of counsel’s presence, the police took the risk that the adduced evidence would not be allowed” (People v. LaClere, supra, at 672).

  • People v. LaClere, 76 N.Y.2d 670 (1990): Right to Counsel at Lineup After Attorney’s Explicit Entry and Judicial Notice

    People v. LaClere, 76 N.Y.2d 670 (1990)

    When an attorney explicitly informs the court and requests that the police be notified that they represent a defendant on a specific charge, the defendant’s right to counsel attaches, requiring that the attorney be notified of any impending investigatory lineup unless exigent circumstances exist.

    Summary

    LaClere was convicted of attempted murder after being identified in a lineup conducted without his attorney present. His attorney had informed the court that they represented LaClere on the charge for which he was being arrested and asked the judge to inform the arresting officers that no statements should be taken without counsel present. The judge complied, but the police conducted a lineup without notifying the attorney. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the attorney’s explicit entry into the case and the judicial notification to the police triggered LaClere’s right to counsel at the lineup, requiring notification to the attorney absent exigent circumstances.

    Facts

    LaClere was arrested after a court appearance on an unrelated matter. His attorney informed the presiding judge that they also represented LaClere on the matter for which he was then being arrested and requested the judge to advise the arresting officers not to take any statements from him without counsel present. The judge complied. The police then conducted a lineup without notifying LaClere’s attorney, where he was identified.

    Procedural History

    The initial court denied the motion to suppress the lineup identification. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, citing precedent that the police were not obliged to inform defense counsel of the investigatory lineup. A dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, when an attorney has explicitly entered a case, sought judicial protective relief, and secured a court’s alert to the arresting officers that the defendant is represented on the charge for which an imminent lineup is to be conducted, the police are required to notify the attorney of the lineup.

    Holding

    Yes, because counsel’s announced entry into the case and explicit solicitation of formal judicial admonitory relief attached the defendant’s right to counsel, requiring notification of the lineup absent some legally recognized excuse.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the formal point of counsel’s entry into the case, their representational activity, and the solicitation of judicial intervention were sufficient to trigger the entitlement to counsel at the investigatory lineup. The Court distinguished this case from People v. Coates, where the defendant had requested counsel’s presence, but the attorney had not formally entered the case. Here, the attorney had explicitly informed the court and requested that the police be notified of their representation. The Court quoted People v. Blake stating, “When an accused, at any stage, before or after arraignment, to the knowledge of the law enforcement agencies, already has counsel, his right or access to counsel may not be denied”. The court found that prompt notification to counsel would have been a feasible and reasonable accommodation of defendant’s right and that there was no indication that notifying counsel would have significantly inconvenienced the witnesses or undermined the advantages of a prompt identification.