People v. Garrett
106 A.D.3d 929
N.Y. App. Div.2013Background
- Appeal by defendant from a Supreme Court murder conviction, reversed on law and remitted for a new hearing on a CPL 440.10 motion.
- Conviction based primarily on the defendant’s police confession; suppression hearing contested voluntariness of the confession.
- Suppression court credited police witnesses; defense claimed coercive interrogation and injuries (handcuffs, taser) but were denied.
- Defendant moved to vacate under Brady and related authorities, alleging the DA failed to disclose a civil action against Detective O’Leary and Suffolk County in EDNY.
- EDNY docket indicated a 1998 civil suit against O’Leary and Suffolk County, with 2001 settlement; DA claimed no knowledge until January 2001.
- County Court denied the motion without a hearing; appellate court granted leave to appeal and reversed for a hearing on Brady disclosure and knowledge
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether undisclosed Brady material regarding a civil suit against a witness qualifies as favorable evidence. | Fuentes materiality satisfied; impeachment value and potential impact on credibility. | Disclosed evidence was not known to prosecutor; nondisclosure could affect outcome. | Remanded for a Brady hearing to determine knowledge and disclosure obligations. |
| Whether the failure to disclose the civil suit constitutes suppression that undermines confidence in the outcome. | Nondisclosure could have led to additional exculpatory or impeaching evidence. | No evidence of suppression or impact on trial strategy. | Materiality shown; hearing required to assess prejudice. |
| Whether the record supports a need to determine the district attorney’s knowledge beyond the attorney’s affirmation. | Knowledge may have resided with others beyond the DA; Brady obligation runs to all who know. | DA affirmations suffice to negate broader knowledge. | Remanded for a hearing on DA knowledge and Brady compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Fuentes, 12 NY3d 259 (N.Y. 2009) (Brady material includes favorable evidence; materiality standard)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 US 263 (U.S. 1999) (Materuity and suppression standards for Brady evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 US 150 (U.S. 1972) (Impeachment evidence; materiality tied to likelihood of affecting outcome)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 US 419 (U.S. 1995) (Prosecution duty to learn favorable evidence known to others)
- People v. LaValle, 3 NY3d 88 (N.Y. 2004) (Brady materiality and suppression analysis in NY)
- People v. Hunter, 11 NY3d 1 (N.Y. 2008) (Presence of impeachment-related Brady material)
- Rahman, 231 AD2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (Remand for further Brady determination)
- Gissendanner v. Police Comm’r, 48 NY2d 543 (N.Y. 1979) (Police knowledge and Brady-like disclosure rules)
- Puglisi, 44 NY2d 748 (N.Y. 1978) (Disclosure obligations and materiality in NY Braden context)
- Vasquez, 49 AD2d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975) (Brady disclosure standards)