New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Echevarria

  • People v. Echevarria, Moss, and Johnson, 21 N.Y.3d 158 (2013): Public Trial Rights and Undercover Officer Testimony

    21 N.Y.3d 158 (2013)

    A trial court may close the courtroom to the public during the testimony of undercover officers if the prosecution demonstrates an overriding interest, such as officer safety, that is likely to be prejudiced by an open trial, and the closure is no broader than necessary, and the court considers reasonable alternatives to closure; however, the court need not explicitly state on the record that it considered alternatives.

    Summary

    These consolidated appeals concern courtroom closures during undercover officers’ testimony in buy-and-bust cases. The Court of Appeals held that limited closures comported with Sixth Amendment public trial principles because the officers demonstrated a specific link between their safety concerns and open-court testimony. The Court clarified that while trial courts must consider alternatives to closure, they are not always required to explicitly state this consideration on the record. One case was reversed due to an erroneous jury charge on the agency defense.

    Facts

    In Echevarria, the defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover officer. The officer testified he remained active in the area, had pending cases, and had been threatened. In Moss, the defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover officer who continued to work in the area after the arrest. The officer had been threatened and searched by suspects. In Johnson, the defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover officer who remained active in the area. This officer had been threatened and physically attacked.

    Procedural History

    In all three cases, the trial courts held Hinton hearings to determine if the courtroom should be closed during the undercover officers’ testimony. All three courts ordered closure during the officers’ testimony, sometimes with exceptions for family. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions in all cases. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the People demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of prejudice to an overriding interest to justify closing the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officers.
    2. Whether the trial judge in each case failed to comply with the requirement that courts consider reasonable alternatives to closure.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the officers demonstrated a specific link between their safety concerns and open-court testimony in the particular buy-and-bust case.
    2. No, because the record made no mention of alternatives but was otherwise sufficient to establish the need to close the particular proceeding, therefore it can be implied that the trial court, in ordering closure, determined that no lesser alternative would protect the articulated interest.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court relied on Waller v. Georgia, which requires the party seeking closure to advance an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives, and it must make adequate findings to support the closure. The Court found the safety of law enforcement officers constitutes an overriding interest. However, there must be a specific link between the officer’s safety concerns and open-court testimony in the particular case.

    In Moss and Johnson, the officers demonstrated continued activity in the area of arrest, open cases, and prior threats, establishing this link.

    The Court emphasized that while trial courts must consider alternatives to closure, they need not always explicitly discuss them on the record. The Court reaffirmed its holding in People v. Ramos. Quoting Ramos, the court stated that “it can be implied that the trial court, in ordering closure, determined that no lesser alternative would protect the articulated interest” (Ramos, 90 NY2d at 503-504 [emphasis added]). The Court distinguished Presley v. Georgia, noting that in Presley, the record made clear that the trial judge’s exclusion of the public was unwarranted, and the space constraints could have been easily remedied using less intrusive measures.

  • People v. Echevarria, 68 N.Y.2d 672 (1986): Vacating Guilty Pleas Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

    People v. Echevarria, 68 N.Y.2d 672 (1986)

    A motion to vacate a guilty plea based on an error apparent on the record must be raised by direct appeal, but a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be raised in a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction.

    Summary

    Defendant, a physician, pleaded guilty to violating the Public Health Law for engaging in a fee-splitting arrangement. She later sought to vacate the plea, arguing it was involuntary because she lacked the requisite intent for a “wilful” violation and that her counsel was ineffective. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision to vacate the plea, holding that errors apparent on the record must be raised by direct appeal, and while ineffective assistance claims can be raised collaterally, the defendant received effective representation given her primary concern was avoiding jail time and multiple charges, which her counsel achieved.

    Facts

    Defendant, a physician, entered into a fee-splitting arrangement with her landlord. As a result, she was charged with violating the Public Health Law. During her plea allocution, she admitted to the arrangement but stated she wasn’t aware it was illegal. Four months after pleading guilty, she was permanently disqualified from the Medicaid reimbursement program because she “wilfully” violated the Public Health Law. Eight months later, she moved to vacate her conviction, arguing that a “wilful violation” requires specific intent, which she lacked.

    Procedural History

    The Criminal Court granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment. The Appellate Term affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Term’s order, reinstating the original judgment of conviction.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the alleged involuntariness of the defendant’s plea, based on statements made during allocution, is reviewable by way of a CPL article 440 motion to vacate the judgment.
    2. Whether the defendant’s conviction should be vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea proceeding.

    Holding

    1. No, because when sufficient facts appear on the record to permit review, the sufficiency of the plea allocution can be reviewed only by direct appeal.
    2. No, because the defendant sought the result she received, and objectively evaluated, the defendant received effective representation.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that under People v. Cooks, errors apparent on the record regarding the voluntariness of a plea must be raised by direct appeal, not a post-trial motion to vacate. The court acknowledged that ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be raised collaterally. However, it found no merit to the defendant’s claim, noting that her primary concern was to avoid jail time and multiple charges, which her counsel successfully negotiated. The court highlighted that numerous charges were dropped due to the plea agreement. Further, the court pointed out the defendant’s delay in bringing the motion after being advised during the administrative proceedings that the charge involved wilful conduct. The court concluded that counsel could have reasonably advised the defendant to plead guilty, believing that specific intent was not an element of the charged crime, a strategy that a “reasonably competent attorney” might have pursued. The court stated: “[C]ounsel could have advised defendant to plead guilty believing that specific intent was not an element of the charged crime and, given this state of law, the contested plea strategy might well have been pursued by a ‘reasonably competent attorney’.”