People v. Holley

The defendant argues that certain videotaped statements *602made by confidential informants and detectives should have been redacted before admission of the subject videotapes into evidence. However, any error in failing to redact the challenged statements was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).

Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than the sentence offered during…