NY appeals court questions discovery in attempted murder case

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has sent an attempted murder case back to the trial judge to decide if the prosecution complied with discovery requirements.

Defendant Vaughn Sanders was convicted before Onondaga County Court Judge Thomas J. Miller in December 2021 of attempted second-degree murder, second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, and tampering with physical evidence.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, has reserved decision and sent the case back to County Court for further proceedings.

The convictions stem from Sanders’ involvement in a shootout in Syracuse where a codefendant fired 12 shots at a police officer, intending to kill the officer.

The codefendant who fired at the police officer, and another codefendant, pleaded guilty. But Sanders rejected plea offers and went to trial. He was convicted of all charges.

Sanders appealed, claiming that Miller should not have allowed a police detective to give his opinion at trial that Sanders was the person in two surveillance videos.

Sanders claimed the detective was no more qualified than the jurors to determine whether he was the person in the videos.

But Sanders’ trial attorney failed to object to the detective’s opinion testimony. He only asked Miller for a limiting instruction to the jury, which Miller granted.

Because Sanders requested no further relief after the limiting instructions were read to the jury, the issue was not preserved for appellate review, “and we decline to exercise our power to address that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice,” the court wrote.

The Fourth Department ruled that the prosecution was not required to provide notice of the identification testimony because the detective did not identify Sanders in a pretrial identification procedure.

Criminal Procedure Law Section 710.30 applies to “in-court identifications predicated on earlier police-arranged confrontations between a defendant and an eyewitness, typically involving the use of lineups, showups, or photographs, to establish the identity of the suspect, none of which happened in this case,” the court wrote.

Sanders’ appellate attorney, Casey S. Duffy, also argued that Miller should have dismissed the indictment on speedy trial grounds because the prosecution failed to disclose police disciplinary records as required.

Duffy claimed that reversal is required because the prosecution used a screening panel of senior prosecutors to determine which police disciplinary records were related to the subject matter of the case, and therefore subject to discovery as impeachment material, and which police disciplinary matters did not relate to the subject matter of the case, and thus not subject to automatic discovery.

“Although the People’s use of a screening panel in this case is not permitted under our prior case law, we do not agree with defendant that he is necessarily entitled to dismissal,” the court wrote.

The case was sent back to County Court for a ruling on whether the prosecution withheld any police disciplinary records that relate to the subject matter of the case.

“If the court determines that there were disciplinary records subject to disclosure that were not turned over to the defense in a timely manner, then the court must determine whether the People exercised due diligence in locating and disclosing those records,” the panel wrote.

“If, based on a finding of no due diligence, the court determines that the certificate of compliance is invalid and the People’s statement of readiness is illusory, then the court must determine whether the time chargeable to the People … exceeds six months, which would require dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds,” the Fourth Department ruled.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035