Legal Opinion · Dissent

The People v. Lee Carr / The People v. Walter Cates, Sr.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 2, 2015No. 26/27Published

1DissentFahey, J.

The trial court conducted an in camera interview with a prosecution witness to ascertain whether his migraine was too debilitating for him to testify that day. The court granted an adjournment, for a second time, and the witness testified the next day. Now, the majority, holding that this was reversible error, grants defendants a new trial, because the interview “concerned potentially significant evidence that defense counsel may have found useful during cross-examination at trial” (majority op at 113). In my view, the in camera inquiry here was permissible because it was merely ministerial.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. FrostNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
  2. People v. ContrerasNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. People v. CarrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API