Wells Dixon represented a prisoner in his appeal from a judgment of conviction, upon a jury verdict, on three counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Our client also appealed from the imposition of consecutive sentences for the grand larceny offenses. Although a grand jury refused to indict our client for robbery, the government presented improper evidence at trial that he robbed three women in the Bronx with a deadly weapon. The government also argued improperly that our client should be sentenced for robbery. The trial court further erred by imposing consecutive sentences for the grand larceny offenses without making any finding that those offenses constituted more than a single act as required by the Penal Law and in violation of our client’s constitutional rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey and related decisions. After briefing and argument, the Appellate Division, First Department, granted a partial reversal, holding that two of the client’s three sentences should have run concurrently, which substantially shortened the client’s incarceration. Eric Tirschwell and Alison Sclater, legal assistant Santo Anthony Cipolla, and then-summer associate Fernando Tamayo assisted on this appeal.

Emily Groendyke represented an indigent defendant in his appeal of his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The trial court improperly excluded the defendant from sidebar examinations of potential jurors on the crucial issue of bias. Under the New York constitution and People v. Antommarchi, these conversations constituted a material stage of the trial to which the defendant had a fundamental right to be present. The Appellate Division, First Department heard our client's appeal in April 2006, but subsequently affirmed his conviction.

Jeremy Saks represents a prisoner in his appeal from a judgment of conviction, upon a jury verdict, on one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The trial court erred in ruling the defendant lacked standing to obtain a pre-trial suppression hearing, as is constitutionally required under Mapp v. Ohio, depriving the defendant of a fair trial. The trial court further erred in excluding on hearsay grounds a written report that contradicted the testimony of a key police witness and corroborated an alternative account presented by the sole defense witness. Our client’s appeal is now pending before the Appellate Division, First Department. Paul Schoeman, legal assistant Laurie Baldinger, and then-summer associate Joseph Shifer have assisted on this appeal.

Darren LaVerne represents a prisoner on appeal, following his conviction at trial in New York state court on burglary charges. We have submitted a brief to the Appellate Division, First Department, arguing that while the indictment, as limited by the bill of particulars, charged our client with burglary based only on a single entry into a vacant commercial building, at 1:30 am, the trial court instructed the jury that it could convict him for burglary based either on that entry, or another, separate entry into the building, which allegedly occurred two hours later. The jury returned a general verdict, without indicating the entry on which its decision to convict was predicated. As our client may have been convicted for an offense that was not charged in the indictment, his right to be indicted by a grand jury under Article I, section 6 of the New York Constitution was violated, and the conviction should be reversed. Our client's appeal is currently pending in the Appellate Division. The Legal Aid Society is co-counsel on the appeal. Eric Tirschwell and paralegals Kimesha Scarbrough and Denise Reid have assisted on the preparation of the appeal.

Christiaan Johnson-Green represents a former prisoner in his appeal from a judgment of conviction, upon a jury verdict, on one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance. Our client's conviction rested upon the testimony of the undercover and arresting officers, whose accounts of the alleged drug transaction were materially inconsistent and non-corroborative, and no drugs were found on our client at the time of his arrest. His appeal is now pending before the Appellate Division, First Department.

Joseph Widman represents a Bronx woman in her appeal from a judgment of conviction, upon a jury verdict, on single counts of assault in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, criminal contempt in the second degree, and harassment in the second degree. The key government eyewitness had a long-standing dispute with our client regarding the romantic interests of a man with whom they both had children, as well as an extensive criminal history. Her testimony was internally inconsistent and at times inconsistent with critical documents and the testimony of other witnesses, calling into doubt the reliability of the jury’s verdict. Our client’s appeal is now pending before the Appellate Division, First Department. Paul Schoeman has assisted on this appeal.

Home: Pro Bono Annual Report