134 A.D.3d 730
N.Y. App. Div.2015Background
- Defendant Carl Allen was convicted by a Richmond County jury of second-degree murder and sentenced; he appealed the judgment.
- More than seven years elapsed between Allen's arrest and his indictment.
- The People conducted further investigation during the delay and argued the delay was justified.
- Allen moved under CPL 30.20 to dismiss the indictment, claiming violation of his speedy-trial and due process rights.
- At trial, a prospective juror brought in news articles; the court questioned the venire about exposure and refused to discharge the entire panel.
- Allen also challenged counsel’s failure to exercise a peremptory challenge against a juror as ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy trial / due process delay | People: Delay was justified by ongoing investigation; good cause established | Allen: 7+ year delay violated speedy-trial and due process rights; dismissal required | Court: Denied CPL 30.20 motion; People met burden of good cause; defendant showed no significant prejudice |
| Length of preindictment incarceration | People: Preindictment incarceration minimal and concurrent with unrelated charge | Allen: Delay's impact compounded by incarceration | Court: Allen was incarcerated only six days on this charge; factor favors People |
| Juror exposure to news articles / juror panel challenge | People: Court could question venire to assess prejudice; panel need not be discharged | Allen: Publicity required discharge or replacement of panel | Court: Court properly questioned prospective jurors and did not err in refusing to discharge panel; fair and impartial jury preserved |
| Ineffective assistance for not using peremptory challenge | People: Counsel’s tactical choices; not constitutionally deficient | Allen: Failure to strike juror was ineffective assistance | Court: No ineffective assistance; choice to not exercise challenge not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (right to speedy trial)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (speedy-trial balancing test)
- Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25 (speedy trial factors referenced)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (prejudice from delay)
- People v. Decker, 13 N.Y.3d 12 (good-cause burden for delay)
- People v. Vernace, 96 N.Y.2d 886 (due process vs speedy trial analysis)
- People v. Romeo, 12 N.Y.3d 51 (five-factor speedy trial framework)
- People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442 (speedy trial analysis)
- People v. Staley, 41 N.Y.2d 789 (delay and prejudice principles)
- People v. Singer, 44 N.Y.2d 241 (relationship of due process and speedy trial)
- People v. Denis, 276 A.D.2d 237 (investigation can justify delay)
- People v. LaRocca, 172 A.D.2d 628 (investigative delay justification)
- People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152 (prejudice requirement)
- People v. Bryant, 65 A.D.2d 333 (prejudice and delay)
- People v. Shulman, 6 N.Y.3d 1 (juror exposure and voir dire)
- People v. Moore, 42 N.Y.2d 421 (jury panel questions on publicity)
- People v. Barboni, 21 N.Y.3d 393 (ineffective assistance standard)
- People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 (counsel tactical decisions)