People v. Session, 34 N.Y.2d 254 (1974)

A defendant seeking coram nobis relief (now a motion to vacate judgment) must provide supporting evidentiary facts, not just conclusory allegations, to warrant a hearing; these facts must include the substance of potential witness testimony and how it would have benefited the defendant.

Summary

Josh Session appealed the denial of his coram nobis relief petition, arguing that the supporting affidavits from his codefendants warranted a hearing. These affidavits alleged an Assistant District Attorney threatened the codefendants with increased charges if they testified on Session’s behalf. The New York Court of Appeals held that Session’s allegations were insufficient because the affidavits lacked specific details about the potential testimony and its relevance to his defense. The Court affirmed the denial but granted Session leave to renew his application with proper affidavits.

Facts

Josh Session sought coram nobis relief, claiming prosecutorial misconduct. He presented affidavits from three codefendants alleging that an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) threatened them with increased charges if they testified on his behalf. The affidavits stated the ADA’s threats, but did not describe the substance or content of the testimony the codefendants would have provided.

Procedural History

Session’s initial petition for coram nobis relief was denied. He appealed this denial. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. Session then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the allegations contained in Session’s petition and supporting affidavits, specifically regarding prosecutorial misconduct, are sufficient to require a hearing for coram nobis relief.

Holding

No, because Session’s affidavits contained only conclusory allegations and lacked supporting evidentiary facts detailing the substance of the potential witness testimony and how it would have benefited his defense.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that a judgment of conviction is presumed valid, and the defendant bears the burden of presenting allegations sufficient to create a factual issue. While contrary evidence can eliminate the presumption of regularity, bare allegations are insufficient. The court stated, “In a coram nobis application, it is not enough to make conclusory allegations of ultimate facts; supporting evidentiary facts must be provided.” The court reasoned that Session failed to provide the substance of the testimony his potential witnesses would have given and how that testimony would have helped his case.

The Court acknowledged that the ADA’s denial and defense counsel affidavits placed the question of intimidation in issue but did not conclusively refute Session’s allegations. However, because Session failed to meet his initial burden of providing sufficient evidentiary facts, he was not entitled to a hearing. The Court noted that it did “not condone the alleged intimidation” but affirmed the denial of relief because of the insufficient submission. The court granted leave to renew the application with proper affidavits, implicitly setting a standard for future petitions. The Court contrasted this case with situations where documentary evidence conclusively refutes a defendant’s claims, warranting denial without a hearing.