Key Takeaway
Court of Appeals reverses civil commitment case where prosecutor attacked expert witness based on religious beliefs during cross-examination, violating fair trial standards.
Matter of State of New York v Andrew O., 2011 NY Slip Op 02715 (2011)
This from the Court of Appeals. In a Mental Health Law Article 10 sexual management proceeding, the Attorney General commenced a Civil Commitment proceeding against a felon convicted of a sexual offense who was nearing his release date from prison. A jury trial occurred and the State proved through clear and convincing evidence that the soon to be released felon required management in accordance with Article 10. Supreme Court, after a subsequent bench trial on the issue of a disposition, found that civil commitment, as opposed to a community based program, was appropriate.
The Court of Appeals following an affirmance by the Appellate Division reversed. This is where this post becomes relevant.
The Assistant Attorney General did the following on cross-examination:
- The State’s attorney attacked the expert’s credibility on the basis of his religious beliefs and affiliation, among other things. For example, during cross-examination, he asked the expert, a psychologist, about his religion of Yoism, which the expert described as similar to Unitarianism; this religion’s basic tenets; and whether Yoism was based upon a historical text. Andrew O.’s counsel objected repeatedly and fruitlessly to this line of questioning ”
2)Closing statement: “He also warned the jurors that there “was a child out there” who would be affected by their decision, and asked rhetorically if they “want another victim to have to come in to find mental abnormality.”
Reversed. You cannot call people monsters (or insinuate it). Just leave the substance of the statement in closing vague and let the jury come to the natural conclusion on their own. There is a good chance they will. Also, you cannot go attacking experts on the religion they practice. To be honest, I still cannot believe attorneys (whether civil or criminal) are still engaging in this practice. It is every disheartening.
Related Articles
- Understanding Article 10 Evidentiary Issues: Expert Witness Testimony and Hearsay Rules in New York Courts
- Expert Competency and Medical Literature in New York Medical Malpractice and No-Fault Cases
- An expert can testify about the standard of care of a “sub-specialist” in appropriate cases
- Understanding Foundation Requirements in Medical Malpractice Expert Testimony
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
