People v. Roopchand
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*36OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
The core question dividing us is whether the trial prosecutor’s remarks in summation, which were patently improper and which we unequivocally condemn, entitle the defendant to a new trial. A review of the record convinces the majority of us that reversal is not warranted.
Reversal for prosecutorial misconduct “ ‘is properly shunned when the misconduct has not substantially prejudiced a defendant’s trial. Reversal is an ill-suited remedy for prosecutorial misconduct; it does not affect the prosecutor directly, but rather imposes upon society the cost of retrying an…
3Cases cited28 opinions
- United States v. HastingSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Morris v. SlappySupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- People v. GallowayNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. HopkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. BrosnanNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by219 opinions
- People v. AlmonteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- People v. WoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- People v. AdamoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- People v. PlantAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- People v. ClarkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
214 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.