New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Marte

  • People v. Marte, 97 N.Y.2d 82 (2001): Implied Consent to Mistrial Based on Silence at O’Rama Conference

    People v. Marte, 97 N.Y.2d 82 (2001)

    A defendant’s consent to a mistrial can be implied from the circumstances, particularly their silence and lack of objection at an O’Rama conference when the trial judge indicates the intention to declare a mistrial.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a defendant impliedly consented to a mistrial. During jury deliberations, the jury sent a note indicating they reached a verdict on some counts but were deadlocked on others. At an O’Rama conference, the trial judge stated his intent to take a partial verdict and declare a mistrial on the remaining counts. Defense counsel did not object when asked for their input. After the jury was discharged, the defendant objected. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant impliedly consented to the mistrial by remaining silent during the O’Rama conference when the judge announced his intentions, precluding a later objection. The court emphasized the importance of active participation in O’Rama conferences to avoid misleading the court.

    Facts

    The jury deliberated and sent a note stating it reached a verdict on two counts but was deadlocked on others.

    At an O’Rama conference, the trial judge indicated his intent to take a partial verdict and declare a mistrial on the undecided charges.

    The judge asked defense counsel if they wanted to be heard; counsel for one defendant responded “no,” and counsel for the co-defendant remained silent.

    After the partial verdict but before discharging the jury, the judge again inquired if there was anything defense counsel wanted to put on the record; neither attorney responded.

    After the jury was discharged, the defendant objected to the mistrial.

    Procedural History

    The trial court declared a mistrial on the undecided charges.

    The Appellate Division affirmed, finding implied consent to the mistrial.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant impliedly consented to a mistrial by remaining silent during the O’Rama conference when the trial judge indicated his intention to declare a mistrial.

    Holding

    Yes, because there was record support for the lower court’s finding of implied consent based on the defendant’s silence and lack of objection at the O’Rama conference when the trial judge indicated his intention to declare a mistrial. The purpose of the O’Rama conference is for attorneys to advise the court, and the defense cannot remain silent, giving the false impression of acquiescence, and then object later.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court relied on People v. Ferguson, which states that consent to a mistrial can be implied from the circumstances. The court found that the defense counsels’ silence during the O’Rama conference, when the judge announced his intention to declare a mistrial on the undecided charges, constituted implied consent. The court emphasized the purpose of an O’Rama conference, which is for attorneys to assist the court in averting error by advising the court concerning the appropriate response to a jury note. Allowing attorneys to remain silent during the conference and then object later would undermine the purpose of the O’Rama procedure. The court reasoned that if the defense believed the court should have taken a different course of action, such as giving an Allen charge, they should have suggested it at the O’Rama conference. By remaining silent, they allowed the court to proceed under the impression that the defense agreed with the proposed course of action. The Court stated, “If this were permissible, attorneys could—by their silence—lull the court into taking actions that could not later be undone.” The court concluded that focusing on the circumstances leading up to the dismissal of the jury, rather than post-discharge statements, is appropriate when determining implied consent. The court noted the defense’s silence prevented the creation of a record that would facilitate appellate review of whether manifest necessity existed for the mistrial.

  • People v. Marte, 13 N.Y.3d 583 (2009): Limits of Exclusionary Rule for Suggestive Identifications

    13 N.Y.3d 583 (2009)

    The state constitutional rule excluding unnecessarily suggestive police-arranged identifications does not extend to identifications where the suggestion originates from private citizens.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that the rule excluding suggestive police-arranged identifications does not apply when the suggestiveness originates from a private citizen. The victim, Peter L., was robbed and shot. Months later, his sister, Margaret, who knew the defendant, told Peter she thought the defendant was the shooter and showed him the defendant’s picture. Peter then identified the defendant in a police lineup. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the exclusionary rule is primarily aimed at deterring police misconduct and does not extend to private communications.

    Facts

    Peter L. was robbed and shot. He was shown hundreds of photographs by police but made no identification. Six months later, Peter’s sister, Margaret, met the defendant, who told her, “I actually shot someone on this block.” Margaret later told Peter she thought she knew who shot him and showed him the defendant’s picture. Peter initially rejected the idea but then identified the defendant from the picture. Margaret reinforced this with a letter describing the defendant as “[t]he kid that everyone thinks shot you.”

    Procedural History

    The victim and his sister then went to the police, who arranged a lineup where Peter identified the defendant. The defendant’s motion to suppress the identification was denied, and he was convicted of robbery and assault. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the state constitutional rule excluding unnecessarily suggestive police-arranged identifications extends to identifications where the suggestiveness originates from a private citizen.

    Holding

    No, because the primary goal of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, and this goal cannot be advanced by extending the rule to cases where the suggestion comes from private citizens.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the exclusionary rule for suggestive identifications, as established in People v. Adams, is designed to enhance the truth-finding process and prevent wrongful convictions by influencing police procedures. The court stated: “The exclusionary rules were fashioned to deter improper conduct on the part of law enforcement officials which might lead to mistaken identifications”. Extending this rule to private communications would not deter such communications, as family and friends are unlikely to regulate their conduct based on court rules of evidence suppression.

    The court distinguished this case from federal cases and cases in other states, noting that those cases either involved police or prosecutor actions or dealt with non-constitutional evidentiary issues. The court emphasized that its decision was based on a constitutional issue and declined to extend a per se constitutional rule of exclusion to cases where a private citizen’s communication results in an identification.

    The court acknowledged the risk of misidentification due to suggestiveness, regardless of its source. However, it emphasized that suggestiveness is just one potential source of error. The court noted that the proper remedy when law enforcement is not the source of the suggestive identification is to rely on cross-examination, counsel’s arguments, and other evidence to allow juries to assess the reliability of eyewitnesses.

    Ultimately, the Court refused to extend the Adams rule because its primary purpose is to influence police conduct, and such influence is impossible when private citizens are the source of the suggestion. The Court suggested expert testimony on eyewitness fallibility may be admissible in certain cases and did not foreclose the possibility that a court could exclude testimony that is more prejudicial than probative under common-law rules of evidence.