New York Law Review

Tag: Witness Privilege

  • People v. Vargas, 86 N.Y.2d 215 (1995): Improperly Drawing Inferences from Witness’s Fifth Amendment Invocation

    People v. Vargas, 86 N.Y.2d 215 (1995)

    It is reversible error for a prosecutor to call a witness knowing they will invoke the Fifth Amendment and then argue that the witness’s silence implies the defendant’s guilt.

    Summary

    Vargas was convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence. A key witness, Arlequín, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when questioned about his involvement and knowledge of the crime. The prosecutor, despite knowing Arlequín would plead the Fifth, repeatedly questioned him on matters he refused to answer and then argued in summation that Arlequín’s silence implied Vargas’s guilt. The New York Court of Appeals reversed Vargas’s conviction, holding that the prosecutor’s actions prejudiced Vargas’s right to a fair trial and that a curative instruction was insufficient to mitigate the damage.

    Facts

    Lourdes Caban was murdered in her car. Police investigation led to Anthony Arlequín, Vargas’s cousin, who initially implicated Vargas in a statement to the police. At trial, Arlequín, after initially stating his prior statement was a lie, was called as a witness by the prosecution. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right in response to most questions about his involvement and Vargas’s role in the murder. The prosecutor continued to question him on these matters in front of the jury, despite knowing he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege.

    Procedural History

    Vargas was convicted of second-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon. He appealed, arguing the prosecutor improperly used Arlequín’s Fifth Amendment invocation to prejudice the jury against him. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding the error harmless due to the trial court’s limiting instruction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the prosecutor committed reversible error by calling a witness who she knew would invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege and then using that invocation to argue the defendant’s guilt.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the prosecutor deliberately elicited the witness’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment and then used it to build an impermissible inference of the defendant’s guilt, thereby denying the defendant a fair trial.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court relied on the principle that the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves. The court stated, “When the People question a witness knowing the witness will respond by invoking the Fifth Amendment, and then compound the prejudice to defendant by expressing in closing argument that the witness’s claim of the testimonial privilege was evidence of defendant’s guilt, defendant is deprived of a fair trial.” It also cited Namet v. United States, establishing the framework for evaluating challenges related to a witness pleading the Fifth Amendment at trial. Key factors include the prosecutor’s conduct, the significance of the questions, whether inferences were drawn in closing arguments, the witness’s relationship to the defendant, and jury instructions.

    The court found that the prosecutor received clear indication of what the witness would not discuss and the court directed the prosecutor not to question him on those matters. The court found that the prosecutor’s repeated questioning and summation arguments were designed to create the inference that Arlequín was protecting Vargas. The court noted the absence of direct evidence linking Vargas to the murder, making the unfavorable inference irresistible. The limiting instruction was insufficient to mitigate the prejudice. The court concluded, “Defendant was irreparably prejudiced when the prosecutor purposely called a witness knowing full well that the witness would invoke the Fifth Amendment and then seized on the witness’s silence in summation to bolster the People’s case against defendant.” The People cannot justify the approach employed in this case on the ground that defendant might have been entitled to a missing witness charge if Arlequín did not testify.

  • People v. Chan, 68 N.Y.2d 233 (1986): Witness’s Assertion of Privilege and Right to Confrontation

    People v. Chan, 68 N.Y.2d 233 (1986)

    When a witness invokes their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during cross-examination, the direct testimony need only be stricken if the refusal to answer pertains to matters directly related to the direct examination, thereby creating a substantial risk of prejudice to the defendant.

    Summary

    Peter Chan and Billy Chin were convicted of attempted murder. The key issue was whether their constitutional right to confront a witness (the victim, Robert Hu) was violated when Hu invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during cross-examination. The New York Court of Appeals held that the defendants’ right to confrontation was not violated because the areas Hu refused to answer were either collateral to his direct testimony or were sufficiently explored through other means, and therefore the trial court did not err in declining to strike Hu’s direct testimony.

    Facts

    Robert Hu, leader of the Ghost Shadows gang, was the target of a shooting stemming from a gang war with the White Tigers, a rival gang formed by Nickie Louie, a former member of the Ghost Shadows. Chan and Chin were members of the White Tigers. Hu met with Louie, where Louie demanded Hu relinquish control of the Mott Street rackets. Hu refused and left. Outside the coffee shop, Chin was observed with a gun. Shots were fired, and Hu identified Chan and Chin as the shooters. Hu had an extensive criminal record and pending charges.

    Procedural History

    The defendants, Chan and Chin, were convicted of attempted murder in the second degree in the Supreme Court, New York County. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgments. The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing a violation of the right to confrontation.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendants were denied their constitutional right to confront an adverse witness when that witness invoked his privilege against self-incrimination on cross-examination.

    Holding

    No, because the witness’s invocation of the privilege concerned matters that were either collateral to his direct examination or sufficiently explored through other evidence, and did not prejudice the defendants.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals acknowledged the fundamental right to confront witnesses through cross-examination, but clarified that this right is not unlimited. A witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court distinguished between invoking the privilege on collateral matters (not requiring the striking of direct testimony) and invoking it on matters directly related to the direct examination (potentially requiring the striking of direct testimony). The court stated that “the ultimate question must be whether the defendant’s inability to test the accuracy of the witness’ direct examination has been such as to create a substantial risk of prejudice.” Here, the court found that the areas of inquiry that were foreclosed were either collateral or cumulative. The defense was able to cross-examine Hu about the events of the shooting. The defense argued five specific areas where cross-examination was improperly limited: Hu’s possible involvement in another gang member’s murder, promises or threats made to Hu by law enforcement, Hu’s participation in the coffee shop conversation, Hu’s leadership of the Ghost Shadows, and Hu’s involvement in a later shooting of defendant Chin. The court found that defendants had ample opportunity to advance their theories. As to possible promises or threats, Hu confirmed he had no agreements with the People, other than the immunity granted for his testimony. The court determined that “all collateral facts relevant to Hu’s bias, credibility, and motive were established through the cross-examination of Hu and through the testimony of other witnesses.” Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike Hu’s direct testimony. The court also noted that New York’s immunity statutes grant full transactional immunity, which may understandably make prosecutors reluctant to request immunity.