131 A.D.3d 972
N.Y. App. Div.2015Background
- In November 1996 two people were murdered in Eastchester; the investigation became a cold case by 1999.
- Defendant Days was arrested in February 2001 for an unrelated order-of-protection violation; after ~7 hours of interrogation (only last ~75 minutes videotaped, after ~14 hours in custody) he confessed.
- Days's first trial (2003) hung; second trial (2004) produced a conviction later vacated on ineffective-assistance grounds; third trial (2011) hung; fourth trial (2011) resulted in conviction on two counts of second-degree murder.
- At the fourth trial the court admitted prior-trial testimony of the defendant's former girlfriend after finding she feigned memory loss and was unavailable; the court denied Days leave to present expert testimony about false confessions.
- The conviction rested largely on the videotaped confession; there was no physical/DNA or eyewitness evidence connecting Days to the murders and the prosecution amended the bill of particulars to expand the possible time of death earlier than previously alleged.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Days’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on false confessions | Expert testimony unnecessary; topic within jurors' understanding and previous courts rejected it | Proffered experts showed defendant’s vulnerability (low IQ, mental illness, suggestibility) and interrogation features making false confession likely | Court reversed: trial court abused discretion in excluding; expert testimony admissible here and new trial ordered with pretrial hearing to scope testimony |
| Admissibility of former girlfriend’s prior testimony (CPL 670.10) | She intentionally feigned memory loss and was held in contempt; thus unavailable and prior testimony admissible | Contended Confrontation Clause violated by admitting prior testimony | Court upheld admission: witness found unavailable by feigned memory loss and contempt; prior testimony admissible |
| Subpoena for names in CODIS list | Denied: no sufficient factual predicate to rebut DCJS determination that disclosure not justified | Sought names of 64 persons whose CODIS profiles allegedly matched DNA from weapon to pursue alternative suspects | Court affirmed quash: defendant failed to show scientific basis to select those 64 persons for disclosure |
| Belated amendment to bill of particulars expanding time of death | People amended to include earlier evening (Nov 18) based on records; amendment timely for prosecution | Amendment prejudiced Days (he had alibi witnesses for Nov 19–21); unfair after years and prior trials | Court found amendment prejudicial and that allowing it was improvident; ordered new trial (noted this error for retrial) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Bedessie, 19 N.Y.3d 147 (N.Y. 2012) (governs admissibility of expert testimony on false confessions; expert must be relevant to defendant and interrogation)
- People v Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 157 (N.Y. 2001) (principles on admissibility and limits of expert psychological testimony)
- People v Kozlowski, 11 N.Y.3d 223 (N.Y. 2008) (standards for disclosure from criminal justice databases)
- People v Diaz, 97 N.Y.2d 109 (N.Y. 2001) (CPL 670.10 and use of prior testimony when witness unavailable)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
- People v LeGrand, 8 N.Y.3d 449 (N.Y. 2007) (false confession issues and corroboration concerns)
- People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) (harmless error standard)