New York Law Review

Tag: Prior Statements

  • Matter of Rodney B., 69 N.Y.2d 687 (1986): Mandatory Disclosure of Rosario Material in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings

    Matter of Rodney B., 69 N.Y.2d 687 (1986)

    In juvenile delinquency proceedings, the prosecution must disclose Rosario material (prior statements of prosecution witnesses) to the defense, and a judge’s determination that the material is duplicative is not a substitute for defense counsel’s own assessment of its usefulness.

    Summary

    Rodney B. was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for acts constituting criminal tampering. At trial, defense counsel requested the Transit Authority officer’s memo book as Rosario material, which was denied because the judge determined the contents were in other documents already given to the defense. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that denying the memo book’s production was error, even with the officer’s testimony, because defense counsel is entitled to review Rosario material independently. The memo book contained a notation not included in other documents, which could have aided Rodney B.’s defense, making the error not harmless.

    Facts

    Respondent, Rodney B., was accused of tampering with safety gates between subway cars.
    At the Family Court hearing, Rodney B. raised an affirmative defense, claiming he did not act for a larcenous or unlawful purpose.
    Defense counsel requested the Transit Authority officer’s memo book for potential impeachment material (Rosario material).
    The officer testified that his memo book contained nothing not already in the field investigation worksheet (TP67) and probation intake referral report (PIRR), which had been provided to the defense.

    Procedural History

    The Family Court Judge denied defense counsel’s request for the officer’s memo book.
    Rodney B. was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and placed with the New York State Division for Youth.
    Defense counsel only received the memo book after filing the Appellate Division brief.
    The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s decision.
    The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Family Court erred in denying defense counsel’s request for the Transit Authority officer’s memo book as Rosario material, based on the officer’s testimony that its contents were duplicative of other disclosed documents.

    Holding

    Yes, because a judge’s determination regarding the usefulness of a witness’s prior statement is not a substitute for defense counsel’s own assessment; therefore, the memo book should have been produced. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new hearing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court relied on Family Court Act § 331.4 (1) (a), which is based on Criminal Procedure Law § 240.45 and the precedent set by People v. Rosario, to emphasize the importance of providing defense counsel with prior statements of prosecution witnesses.
    The Court quoted People v. Perez, stating that even “a judge’s impartial determination as to what portions [of a statement] may be useful to the defense, is no substitute for the single-minded devotion of counsel for the accused.”
    The Court found that the memo book was not simply duplicative because it contained a statement that Rodney B. had seen the officer watching him and another person board the train from between cars. This was consistent with the defendant’s testimony and could have been used to support his affirmative defense.
    The Court referenced People v. Consolazio, suggesting that the “better practice is to direct turnover of material sought once it is determined that it is in fact Rosario material”.
    Because the defense was denied the opportunity to use this information, the court found the error was not harmless. The Court emphasized the importance of the defense having access to all Rosario material for effective cross-examination and presentation of their case.

  • People v. Malizia, 62 A.D.2d 896 (1978): Right to Prior Statements of Witnesses (Rosario Rule)

    People v. Malizia, 62 A.D.2d 896 (1978)

    A defendant is entitled to copies of a prosecution witness’s prior statements for use in cross-examination, and examining the documents briefly during another witness’s testimony does not cure the error of failing to provide those copies.

    Summary

    Malizia was convicted, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to provide defense counsel with copies of police documents containing prior statements of prosecution witnesses. The Court reasoned that the defense was entitled to use these prior statements during cross-examination. Examining the documents during the investigating officer’s testimony did not overcome this error, as defense counsel could not realistically remember the salient details. The Court also noted the acrimonious exchanges between defense counsel and the trial court and directed that the case be assigned to a different judge on remand.

    Facts

    The prosecution presented witnesses at trial who had previously given statements to police officers at the scene. The police reports and arrest forms were based upon the information derived from these earlier statements. The defense requested copies of these documents to aid in cross-examination. The trial court refused to provide copies of the documents to defense counsel.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case to the Family Court for a new fact-finding hearing before a different judge.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court erred in refusing to provide defense counsel with copies of prior statements of prosecution witnesses for use in cross-examination, where those statements were contained in police documents and reports.

    Holding

    Yes, because the defendant was entitled to use the prior statements of prosecution witnesses to conduct a searching cross-examination, and a brief examination of the documents during another witness’s testimony does not substitute for having copies available during the relevant witness’s testimony.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on the Rosario rule, which requires the prosecution to provide the defense with prior statements of prosecution witnesses for use in cross-examination. The Court stated that the interview summaries were drawn directly from prior statements of prosecution witnesses. The police report and arrest forms were, in turn, based upon information derived from the earlier statements. The Court noted that “the defendant was entitled to the use of these prior statements during the cross-examination of these witnesses.” The Court emphasized that examining the documents during another witness’s testimony was insufficient, stating: “It is hardly realistic to expect that defense counsel would retain sufficient memory of the salient details to enable him to conduct a searching cross-examination.” The Court further clarified that the documents did not need to be formally marked for identification to trigger the prosecution’s duty to provide copies to the defense. The court also disapproved of the acrimonious exchanges during the trial and ordered that a different judge preside over the new hearing, demonstrating the court’s concern for ensuring a fair trial free from perceived bias.