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

Team 30 v 40
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: Erin Clark and Hannah Crosby for
Appellant.
Massitan Fafana and Karman Saini, for
Respondent.
JUDGES: Dewitt, Domagola, Parakkatu,
Blaszczyk, Furia
OPINION
We the Appellant Court of the State of New York
finds in favor of the respondent, Diedre Rubenstrunk.
The court finds that Deidre deserves a new trial based
on the premise that she met all six factors of the test
outlined in Salemi v. State of New York.
The respondent proved that Deidre deserved a new
trial due to the fact that new evidence exists. As
cited in the case of People v. Salemi, newly
discovered evidence needs to pass a six prong test in
order to be sufficient in court. The case outlines that
the respondent must satisfy the following: 1. It must
be such as will probably change the result if a new
trial is granted, 2. It must been discovered since the
trial, 3. It must be such as could have not 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 respondent proved that the
outcome of the case would most likely change if
evidence was presented that the trial’s primary
witness, Logan Murphy, is suffering from dementia
and memory loss. Furthermore, the respondent
confirmed that Logan’s condition could only have
been discovered after the trial, proving that element
two of the Salemi test is satisfied. The respondent
successfully argued that all six elements were met
and that testimony concerning Logan’s mental
competency is material to the case and it would not
serve to merely impeach the witness or to be
cumulative.
New evidence was also found in the testimonies of
Kelsey Williford and Aaron Taggert concerning Jane
Henderson. The respondent adequately proved that
the two legal documents stating that Jane Henderson
had admitted murdering Brian Rubenstrunk, strongly
satisfied the six elements of the Salemi test. As the
case of People v. Macon states, and the respondent
confirms, a sworn statement carries more merit than
an unsworn statement. The testimony of Williford
and Taggart requires a new trial because the new
evidence was not cumulative or contradicting
because these testimonies were not brought forth in
the first trial. The respondent clearly stated that this
case is unlike People v. Powell, were the evidence
was in fact cumulative.
We agree with the lower court’s decision to grant
Deidre Rubenstrunk a new trial on the premise that
she meets all six factors as set forth in the case of The
People v. Salemi.
Additionally, there were two different sworn
affidavits from Kelsey Williford and Aaron Taggert.
The sworn statements also came about a month after
the trial. The third criterion of the test says that the
evidence has to have not been able to be discovered
before the trial with the exercise of due diligence.
The respondent adequately proved that Deidre could
not have known this information before the trial
because Kelsey was not going to say that Jane
committed the murder, when she was a suspect
herself. The respondent argued that She felt safe
coming out with the statement after she had been
cleared on the accounts of murder, and therefore no
longer had a reason not to tell the truth under oath.
The fourth prong states that the evidence must be
material to the issue and Logan’s newly discovered
dementia was completely material due to the fact that
his testimony may be unreliable. The evidence of
possibility that Jane committed the murder is also
material because Deidre may be kept in jail for a
crime she did not commit. The respondent also
proved that the evidence was not cumulative unlike
the case of People v. Powell. The evidence was not
cumulative because Jane’s possible affair was never
brought up in the trial because the Judge did not give
any leeway due to the fact that no picture was
present. The final factor of the Salemi test was
proven when the respondent proved that none of the
evidence contradicted the evidence presented in the
trial. Deidre now had sworn affidavits accusing Jane
of the murder, which had not been done in the
original trial. As the case of People v. Macon states, a
sworn statement carries more merit than a unsworn
statement. Logan’s dementia was not contradicting
because he was only tested on his mental state rather
than memory loss which occurs when someone is
diagnosed with dementia.
We agree with the lower court’s decision to grant
Deidre Rubenstrunk a new trial on the premise that
she meets all six factors of the Salemi test.
66