ReportWire

Tag: court of appeals

  • Prudenti: Understanding New York appellate courts and appeals process | Long Island Business News

    [ad_1]

    In Brief:
    • NY trial court decisions are first reviewed by one of four departments.
    • The Appellate Term in NYC and Nassau/Suffolk handles overflow from lower courts.
    • The in Albany has the final say and establishes binding precedents.
    • Arguments at appellate courts are open to the public and often live-streamed.

    This is the last in an occasional series of articles explaining the history and scope of the various New York State Courts

    Sometimes, New York’s trial judges make a mistake.

    They’re human beings, and often very busy human beings. They might misconstrue or misapply the law. They might misinterpret a law that the higher courts haven’t yet interpreted. They might allow, or disallow, evidence improperly. But there’s always at least one appellate panel—and sometimes two—to set things straight.

    New York’s appellate courts play a vital role in ensuring justice is done in each individual case, and perhaps more importantly, settling the law for the future so that it can be applied uniformly and consistently. But as is typical in New York, it’s all a little confusing. So, in this column I’ll try to sort it all out.

    For the most part, trial court decisions are first reviewed in one of the four geographic departments of the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court.

    • The First Department, in Manhattan, handles only appeals from New York County and the Bronx.
    • The Second Department, in Brooklyn, hears appeals from Dutchess, Kings, Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk and Westchester counties.
    • The Third Department covers 28 counties from Kingston to Canada, and down to Binghamton.
    • And the Fourth Department, based in Rochester, handles Central and Western New York and the Southern Tier.

    Last year, the four departments collectively issued over 15,000 decisions, heard 4,000 oral arguments and decided more than 25,000 motions. They are swamped, but the New York City departments get some help from a unique court, the “Appellate Term,” which generally handles appeals from the New York City Civil and criminal courts and district courts in Nassau and Suffolk counties. Last year, the Appellate Term siphoned off about 1,300 cases that otherwise would have gone to the First or Second Department.

    Sometimes, those courts make a mistake, and sometimes an Appellate Division panel (usually five judges) construes a statute one way and a panel in another region interprets it differently. So, which one got it right?

    The Court of Appeals, based in Albany, is at the top of the heap. Except for the very rare case that goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals has the last word.

    It is comprised of seven judges, all appointed by the governor for 14-year terms. The governor may only appoint judges recommended by the bi-partisan Commission on Judicial Nomination, which includes appointees of the governor, chief judge and legislative leaders. The court’s main role, beyond deciding a particular case, is settling the law and establishing precedents.

    As someone who served as presiding justice of the Appellate Division, Second Department, and sat on the Court of Appeals when the top court was shorthanded, I’ve seen firsthand what goes on behind the scenes. It’s quite impressive.

    On both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals, the judges are acutely aware of the gravity of their job, the importance of getting it right and the danger of unforeseen consequences if they adopt a broad new rule. They truly study the record and briefs, huddle with their clerks to hash out the legal points and often engage in lively debate with the other judges when the cases are conferenced.

    The conferences—private meetings where the judges who heard the appeal discuss how to rule—can be intense and animated. tend to be very smart, scholarly, principled and opinionated. Sometimes one or more judges will disagree with what the majority has decided and will issue a dissent. But most of the time, the judges can disagree, even forcefully, without being disagreeable.

    As I noted in the first column in this series (“Understanding New York’s Misnamed Supreme Court,” LIBN June 5, 2025) most Americans could not pass the civics exam required of immigrants seeking to become U.S. citizens. Our appellate court arguments are a daily civics lesson, and I’d encourage everyone to tune in.

    Arguments at the Court of Appeals and Appellate Division are virtually always open to the public and usually live-streamed. Appellate arguments rarely take more than a half hour, and it’s illuminating to view our justice system in action.

     

    Gail Prudenti is the former chief administrative judge of the courts of the State of New York; former presiding justice of the Appellate Department, Second Division; and the former dean of Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University. She currently serves as partner at Burner Prudenti Law, P.C.


    [ad_2]

    Opinion

    Source link

  • Supreme Court upholds Kauai murder conviction

    [ad_1]

    The Hawaii Supreme Court, in a 5-0 decision, upheld the 2021 murder conviction and life sentence of a man found guilty of fatally stabbing his 67-year-old wheelchair-bound landlord, Kauai County Prosecutor Rebecca Like announced this week.

    The high court reversed the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ ruling that overturned the conviction.

    Peter Grewer’s murder trial began in April 2021, nearly three years after the death of Joellen Hartman, who was stabbed 17 times June 18, 2018. Grewer had been living in an ohana unit on Hartman’s property and was evicted the same day she was stabbed to death.

    During the trial, the state called 23 witnesses and provided circumstantial evidence along with forensic DNA evidence found on Grewer’s bloodied clothes and under Hartman’s fingernails.

    A Kauai Circuit Court jury found him guilty of second-­degree murder.

    “Due to the heinous and cruel nature of the crime as well as Ms. Hartman’s advanced age, the state sought extended and enhanced sentencing, ” the Kauai Prosecutor’s Office said in a news release. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

    Grewer appealed the conviction based on a potential juror’s comments that he wanted to be excused from jury duty.

    The court was made aware of the comments, and all potential jurors who heard the comments were interviewed by the judge. The judge excused the potential juror who made the comments from serving as a juror, and reminded the others to disregard the statements made about the case.

    Grewer argued the comments violated his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

    The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled, 2-1, that his right to a fair trial was violated, overturned the conviction, and sent the case back to Circuit Court for a new trial.

    The Kauai Prosecutor’s Office petitioned the Supreme Court, which opined that the Circuit Court’s investigation into the juror’s comments was adequate, that the judge’s instructions given to the jury were sufficient to address any prejudice that could have arisen from those comments, and any prejudice caused by the comments was harmless in light of the overwhelming, uncontradicted physical evidence of Grewer’s guilt.

    Deputy Prosecutor Tracy Murakami handled the petition. Deputy Prosecutor Matthew Arakawa and former Deputy Prosecutor Kimberly Torigoe Metcalfe tried the case.

    Like said in a written statement : “Our office, with our law enforcement partners, celebrate (the ) Hawaii Supreme Court decision reversing the ICA and restoring Grewer’s conviction in this heinous, premeditated, callous murder of a vulnerable Kauai resident.

    “We are grateful to the many individuals who worked tirelessly on this case and we hope this decision provides some solace to the victim’s friends and family.

    “We are relieved that this defendant will never walk the streets again.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UPDATE: Jussie Smollett May Return To Jail After Actor's Conviction For Hate Crime Hoax Is Upheld

    UPDATE: Jussie Smollett May Return To Jail After Actor's Conviction For Hate Crime Hoax Is Upheld

    [ad_1]

    Jussie Smollett may be returning to jail after an Illinois Appeals court upheld his conviction for staging a hate crime in 2019. As The Shade Room previously reported, the actor was found guilty in December 2021.

    In March of 2022, Smollett was sentenced to 150 days in the Cook County jail. Additionally, the actor was ordered to serve 30 days of probation and satisfy orders for restitution.

    Six days later, however, Smollett was released from police custody on an emergency motion. The motion granted the actor bail as his team worked to appeal his conviction.

    RELATED: The Osundairo Brothers Reenact Alleged Staged Attack Against Jussie Smollett (Video)

    More Details Regarding The Illinois Court’s Decision On Jussie Smollett’s Conviction

    According to Fox News, Smollett received a decision regarding his appeal from an Illinois court on Friday, December 1.

    The outlet reports that three judges gave the ruling 2-1. Justice David Navarro and Justice Mary Ellen Coghlan agreed to uphold Smollett’s 2021 conviction, while Judge Freddrenna Lyle reportedly “dissented.”

    According to AP News, Lyle reportedly believes Smollett paid his dues when he completed community service in exchange for prosecutors to drop his charges in 2019.

    A representative for Smollett and his legal team told the outlet they plan to “file an appeal with the Supreme Court.”

    “We wish to highlight that the decision was divided, with Justice Lyle offering a detailed analysis in favor of Smollett,” Holly Baird reportedly explained. “We are preparing to escalate this matter to the Supreme Court, armed with a substantial body of evidence.”

    A special prosecutor named Dan. K. Webb reportedly championed the Illinois Appeals Court’s decision.

    “As the appellate court noted, Mr. Smollett ‘challenge[d] virtually every aspect of’ the prosecution, and the appellate court correctly rejected each and every one of those challenges,” Webb stated, per Fox News. “Today’s decision is a validation of Winston & Strawn’s tireless work on this matter and a resounding victory for justice. We are proud to have prevailed in a case that, we believe, can help restore the public’s confidence in the Cook County justice system.”

    According to Fox News, after Smollett’s team files another appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court will decide whether to “hear the case.” Then, if the actor’s conviction is not overturned, he will return to Cook County jail to finish his 150-day sentence.

    A Look Back On The Actor’s Sentencing & Staged Hate Crime Hoax

    According to Fox News, Smollett was found guilty on five out of six charges of disorderly conduct in December 2021. In January 2019, the actor went viral after alleging he was the victim of a “racist and homophobic attack” by two men in ski masks.

    A police investigation revealed that Smollett orchestrated the plot. Additionally, the former ‘Empire’ actor hired the two men, Bola and Ola Osundairo, to participate as assailants for $3,500.

    Fox News reports that Smollett maintained his innocence during his sentencing. Additionally, his legal team alleges that Smollett’s “due process rights” were violated when he was given “renewed protection” and his initial deal, or “nonprosecution agreement,” with prosecutors was not honored.

    According to CNN, the court ultimately found that prosecutors never agreed to drop Smollett’s charges.

    “Here, the State’s nolle prosequi [dcision to no longer prosecute] of the indictment was not a final disposition of the case,” the court declared, per CNN. “Therefore, the State was not barred from re-prosecuting Smollett…”

    Furthermore, Smollett’s legal team reportedly accused the judge who presided over his conviction of having bias against the actor.

    “[In addition, the] circuit court judge improperly denied the defense motion for substitution of judge for cause because of his explicit bias towards Mr. Smollett, rendering every subsequent ruling and action in this case null and void,” Smollett’s legal reportedly disclosed in their March 2023 appeal filing.

    RELATED: ‘Basketball Wives LA’ Alum Brittish Williams Sentenced Over Fraud Charges

    [ad_2]

    Jadriena Solomon

    Source link