2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

Team 29 v 33
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, Appellant, v. DEIDRE
RUBENSTRUNK, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
Department, New York
March 10, 2012, Argued
March 10, 2012, Decided
COUNSEL: Justin Viele, Lukas Marra,
and Jon Orday, for Appellant.
Raymond Garcia and Alex
Lester, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Orr, Mazzeo, Jacobs, Cicerelli,
Kappel, Sutton
OPINION BY: Last
OPINION
We the Appellant Court of the State of New
York find in favor of the Appellant, The
People of the State of New York. The
Appellant successfully showed that the
information related to Logan Murphy and
Jane Henderson is not “Newly Discovered
Evidence”, and The Respondent failed to
prove the existence of new evidence based
on the test in People V. Salemi. They further
failed to show that this court can allow a
new trial without all six factors of the
Salemi test having been met, in the interests
of justice as suggested in People V. Balan.
The Appellant proved to the court that the
test detailed in People v. Salemi must be
entirely satisfied in order for evidence to be
considered “Newly discovered”. The
respondent argued that under Balan, the
court has the inherent discretion to grant a
new trial which is not compliant with the
statute in People v. Salemi in the interests of
justice. If the court were to ever allow a
new trial in the interests of justice, a party
must prove that the newly discovered
evidence is trustworthy. The Appellant
proved that in this matter it is not in the
interests of justice to grant a new trial
because the alleged new evidence was not
trustworthy. The Appellant showed that the
affidavit which cites Jane Henderson as
having said she killed Brian was not
trustworthy because the comments Jane
made were while she was inebriated and
regardless of the fact that affidavit is sworn,
its content is not trustworthy.
While the Respondent proved most of the
prongs of the Salemi test, they failed to
prove two of them, which is not acceptable
for the information they wish to provide to
be counted as “Newly discovered evidence”
warranting a new trial. The Salemi test
states: Newly discovered evidence in order
to be sufficient must fulfill all the following
requirements: 1. It must be such as will
probably change the result if a new trial is
granted; 2. It must have been discovered
since the trial; 3 it must be such as could not
have been discovered before the trial by the
exercise of due diligence; 4. It must be
material to the issue; 5. It must not be
cumulative to the former issue; and, 6. It
must not be merely impeaching or
contradicting the former evidence.” The
Appellant proved that the Logan Murphy’s
mental status and dementia could have been
discovered prior to the trial, had the
Respondent’s lawyers done their due
diligence of ensuring the mental state of the
witness. Furthermore, the Appellant showed
the “new evidence” would have merely
impeached and contradicted what was
presented in the original trial, if Logan were
to be asked to speak again to his former
mental status, he would only contradict
what was originally said. These two facts
nullify the other prongs of Salemi test and as
such this information cannot be considered
“newly discovered evidence”
We over turn the lower court’s Judge’s
decision to grant a new trial based on the
interest of justice.
60