New York Law Review

Tag: Misidentification Defense

  • People v. Howard, 22 N.Y.3d 388 (2013): Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Showup Identifications

    People v. Howard, 22 N.Y.3d 388 (2013)

    A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on discrete omissions must show that counsel failed to raise a “clear-cut” or “dispositive” argument; showup identifications are permissible under certain circumstances, and the determination of their reasonableness presents a mixed question of law and fact.

    Summary

    Malik Howard and Hilbert Stanley were convicted of first-degree robbery. They appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue an affirmative defense (the displayed weapon was inoperable) and challenging the admissibility of a showup identification. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that counsel’s strategic choices were reasonable, given the misidentification defense pursued, and that record support existed for the lower courts’ determination that the showup was proper under the circumstances, even with a time lapse and distance from the crime scene. The court emphasized that showup determinations are fact-specific and should not be second-guessed absent clear error.

    Facts

    Domingo Lopez was robbed at gunpoint by two men who exited a gray car. One man pressed a gun to Lopez’s head, while the other rifled through his pockets. Lopez reported the crime. Shortly after, police officers stopped a silver car matching the description, driven by Stanley with Howard as a passenger. Officers observed open beer containers and smelled marijuana. A search of the car revealed Lopez’s wallet insert and a black imitation pistol. Lopez was taken to the scene and identified Howard and Stanley as the robbers in a showup identification.

    Procedural History

    Howard and Stanley were indicted for first-degree robbery and other charges. Their motion to suppress the showup identification was denied. They were convicted of first-degree robbery. The Appellate Division affirmed. One of the dissenting Justices granted Howard’s motion for leave to appeal, and a Judge of the Court of Appeals subsequently granted Stanley’s related motion.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Howard and Stanley were deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to their attorneys’ failure to (a) request dismissal of the first-degree robbery count, (b) request a jury charge on the affirmative defense that the displayed weapon was inoperable, and (c) request a clarifying instruction on the basis for the first-degree robbery count?

    2. Whether the showup identification was unduly suggestive and violated Howard and Stanley’s rights?

    Holding

    1. No, because the attorneys’ strategic choices were reasonable given the facts of the case and the misidentification defense pursued.

    2. No, because the showup identification was reasonable under the circumstances, and the lower courts’ determination was supported by the record.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that to establish ineffective assistance based on discrete omissions, a defendant must show that counsel failed to raise a “clear-cut” or “dispositive” argument. Here, there was evidence beyond the BB gun that something was pressed into Lopez’s back, which could legally constitute display of a firearm. The decision not to pursue the affirmative defense could have been strategic, as it would undermine the misidentification defense.

    Regarding the showup identification, the Court noted that while it occurred five miles from the crime scene and after some time had passed, these factors alone did not render it improper. The police stopped the car roughly one hour and 15 minutes after the crime, and Lopez identified the defendants about 45 minutes later. There was no improper suggestion by the police. The Court emphasized that showup determinations are fact-specific and present mixed questions of law and fact, and the lower courts’ determination had record support. The Court quoted People v. Harrison, stating, “[R]easonable minds may differ as to the inference to be drawn… and accords with the general principle long recognized in civil cases that questions of the reasonableness of conduct can rarely be resolved as a matter of law even when the facts are not in dispute.”

    The Court emphasized that showups must be reasonable under the circumstances and not unduly suggestive, but the determination of reasonableness is a mixed question of law and fact, beyond the Court of Appeals’ review if record support exists. The Court stated: “Viewing possible suspects is the entire point of a showup, and the lower courts reasonably found that none of the features of this showup rendered it more prejudicial than any other.”

  • People v. Wright, 94 N.Y.2d 552 (2000): Defining Meaningful Legal Representation in New York

    People v. Wright, 94 N.Y.2d 552 (2000)

    In New York, a defendant is entitled to “meaningful representation,” which is satisfied so long as the totality of the evidence, law, and circumstances reveal that the attorney provided competent assistance, focusing on the fairness of the process rather than the particular impact on the outcome of the case.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of robbery. His conviction was overturned by the Appellate Division, which found ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney presented an alibi witness whose testimony was ultimately damaging to the defense. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant received meaningful representation. Even though the alibi defense failed, the attorney’s overall representation was competent, focusing on misidentification, and the failed alibi did not undermine the fairness of the trial. The court reaffirmed New York’s “meaningful representation” standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.

    Facts

    A livery cab driver was robbed by five men, one of whom was the defendant. The defendant entered the front seat and, at gunpoint, demanded money from the driver, while another man in the back pointed a shotgun. The driver later identified the defendant in a lineup. At trial, the defense challenged the reliability of the identification and presented an alibi witness.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted of first and second-degree robbery. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding ineffective assistance of counsel. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and remitted the case for consideration of facts and issues not previously determined.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant was denied meaningful representation when his attorney called an alibi witness who failed to account for the defendant’s whereabouts on the night of the crime, thereby arguably harming the defense.

    Holding

    No, because viewing the totality of the circumstances, the attorney provided meaningful representation despite the failed alibi defense, and the fairness of the trial was not compromised.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals applied the “meaningful representation” standard, emphasizing that a defendant is guaranteed a fair trial, not a perfect one. It stated, “So long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation,” a defendant’s constitutional right is met. The Court emphasized that isolated errors do not constitute ineffectiveness unless they are “so serious that defendant did not receive a ‘fair trial.’” The court noted that the attorney competently represented the defendant’s interests by challenging the reliability of the victim’s identification and highlighting discrepancies in the victim’s description. Although the alibi testimony was discredited, this alone did not “seriously compromise” the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court distinguished between true ineffectiveness and unsuccessful trial tactics, concluding that the failed alibi was an unsuccessful tactic, not ineffective assistance. The court explicitly declined to adopt the federal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel as set forth in Strickland v. Washington, reaffirming its commitment to the “meaningful representation” standard which focuses on the “fairness of the process as a whole rather than [any] particular impact on the outcome of the case.” The court stated, “Counsel competently represented defendant’s interests at other stages of the proceedings, and counsel’s presentation of the alibi testimony did not diminish the legitimacy of defendant’s misidentification defense.”