People v. Washington, 27 N.Y.2d 401 (1971)

A defendant with prior knowledge of a witness’s perjury regarding promises of leniency from the prosecution, who fails to disclose this knowledge to the court or jury, is barred from later seeking relief based on that perjury.

Summary

Washington sought coram nobis relief, arguing that a prosecution witness, Anderson, falsely testified he had no expectation of leniency. The prosecutor knew this was false but did not correct it. Normally, this would warrant a new trial. However, Washington knew of the promises to Anderson *before* his trial. Despite this knowledge, Washington did not reveal it when questioned about Anderson’s motives. Washington’s counsel also confirmed that Washington had told him about the promises before the trial. The court held that because Washington knew of the perjury and failed to act, he was barred from relief. The court emphasized it would be punishing the People rather than protecting legitimate interests of the defendant.

Facts

1. Martin Anderson, a key prosecution witness in Washington’s trial, testified he had no reason to expect leniency in exchange for his testimony.
2. This testimony was false; Anderson had received assurances of leniency from the prosecutor.
3. After Washington’s trial, the indictment against Anderson was dismissed based on his cooperation in Washington’s trial.
4. Prior to his own trial, Washington was informed by Anderson about the promises of leniency.
5. During his trial, when questioned about Anderson’s motives, Washington was evasive and did not disclose his knowledge of the promises.

Procedural History

1. Washington was convicted based, in part, on Anderson’s testimony.
2. Washington then filed a coram nobis application, claiming that Anderson’s false testimony warranted a new trial.
3. The lower court denied the application.
4. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the denial.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a defendant, who knew before his trial that a prosecution witness perjured himself regarding promises of leniency and failed to disclose this knowledge, is entitled to coram nobis relief based on that perjury.

Holding

1. No, because both the defendant and his counsel, with knowledge of the facts, stood silently by and did nothing themselves to remedy the situation; the court will not merely punish the prosecution and thus penalize the People, where there cannot be said to be legitimate interests of the defendant to be protected.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged the prosecutor’s failure to correct Anderson’s false testimony would normally warrant reversal under People v. Savvides. However, the court distinguished this case because Washington knew of the perjury before his trial and failed to disclose it. The court reasoned that allowing Washington to benefit from this situation would be unfair because he knowingly withheld information that could have been used to impeach Anderson’s testimony. The court stated, “Where, however, as here, both the defendant and his counsel, with knowledge of the facts, stood silently by and did nothing themselves to remedy the situation, we would make a very limited exception to the Savvides rule. To do otherwise, in our view, would be merely to punish the prosecution, and thus to penalize the People, where there cannot be said to be legitimate interests of the defendant to be protected.” The court emphasized the need to protect the integrity of the trial process and prevent defendants from strategically withholding information to secure a later advantage. The court declined to penalize the People when the defendant possessed, and failed to utilize, the pertinent exculpatory information.