Judge As Advocate Violates Due Process Right To A Fair Trial
Cooperation Agreement Made Between Codefendant and Trial Court Violates the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Right To A Fair Trial
New York Appellate Lawyer
People v. Agape A. Towns
New York Court of Appeals
2019 WL 19955202019
N.Y. Slip Op. 03527
Decided on May 7th, 2019
New York Criminal Appeals Lawyer
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant was denied the right to a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when the trial court negotiated and entered into a cooperation agreement with a codefendant, which required him to testify against the defendant in exchange for a more favorable sentence.
HOLDING:
The Court held that the trial court abandoned the role of a neutral arbiter and assumed the function of an interested party, thereby creating a specter of bias that requires reversal, and, in so doing, denied defendant the Due Process right to a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment when the trial court advised the codefendant that the sentence imposed would be left to the court’s discretion entirely based upon the codefendant’s level of cooperation in the prosecution of Mr. Towns.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Defendant Agape Towns was convicted by a jury of six counts of first-degree robbery. While many aspects of the robbery were captured on surveillance video, Towns and his codefendant’s faces were covered, and the victims could not identify them. Before trial, the lower court negotiated a plea agreement with the codefendant, under which he pleaded guilty to the entire indictment in exchange for a determinate sentence within the range of nine to fifteen years in prison. The sentence imposed would be based upon the codefendant’s level of cooperation in the prosecution against Towns. However, if the codefendant failed to cooperate or be honest, the sentence would be greater than nine years. The codefendant testified against Towns and admitted to his own involvement as his accomplice.
New York Criminal Appeals Lawyer
COURT’S ANALYSIS:
The Court of Appeals held that the defendant was denied the Due Process right to a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing that the right of every person accused of a crime to have a fair and impartial trial is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence. Not only must judges actually be neutral, but they must also appear so as well. Objective neutrality of a court refers to the actions of the court during the trial.
In People v. De Jesus, 42 NY2d at 524 the court held that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial when the trial court made sarcastic remarks toward defense counsel which unfairly burdened the defendant with the obligation of rebutting the proof of the People and countering the implications imputed by the court. In People v. Arnold, 98 NY2d 63 at 68 the Court held a trial court abused its discretion when it assumed the counsel’s role of deciding what evidence to present, introducing evidence that had the effect of corroborating the prosecution’s witnesses and discrediting defendant on a key issue by calling its own witness at trial. While the law allows for some judicial intervention, that line is crossed when a judge takes on the role, or even appears to be taking on the role, of an advocate at trial.
Here, the trial court negotiated and entered into a quid pro quo cooperation agreement with the codefendant and promised to sentence the codefendant within a specific range in exchange for his testimony against Mr. Towns. The trial court erred in assuming the role of the prosecutor because they obtained a witness in support of the prosecution in exchange for the promise of a more lenient sentence. By binding the truthfulness of the testimony to that codefendant’s prior statements to police, the trial court directed the codefendant on how he must testify in order to receive the benefit of the bargain. Given these circumstances, the trial court’s conduct conflicted with the notion of fundamental fairness.