People v Agostini, 2011 NY Slip Op 03752 (4th Dept. 2011)
Great line from the Fourth Department
“[d]efendant contends that he was denied a fair trial based on the prosecutor’s cross-examination of his wife concerning her prior employment as an exotic dancer. We agree with defendant that such questions were improper. Employment as an exotic dancer does not constitute a prior bad act for the purposes of cross-examination, and those questions were not relevant to any other issue in the case. We conclude, however, “that the prosecutor’s misconduct did not cause such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he has been denied due process of law”
What is scary is that County Court allowed this line of questioning and the Fourth Department found it harmless. Can someone who reads this from Syracuse tell me whether the water from Lake Onondaga is finding its way into the local water supply? For those that do not get the joke, google Lake Onondaga and General Electric. Yes, I used to live in Syracuse…
4 Responses
This case is important to me because the Zuppa used to be an exotic dancer.
Now I am going to take care of the two fools on the other string tomorrow. It’s my son’s birthday and I don’t want them messing it up.
So I guess we were right not to report this to the bar after all??
Ahh, I recall the good old days, “Boy Wonder,” dancing the Sunset strip.
I agree J.T. What this simply means is that the prosecution will bring up stripping/strippers whenever they can, and especially when they have no real case. After all, it does not cause an unfair trial, right 4th Dept?
Also, think of what decisions like this– cheapening our chosen craft– can do to a diminishing pool of talented dancers.
Drove me right out of the business. I had to give up my condo in Cherry Grove and wound up in law school.