People v. Haywood, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 00555 (2d Dept. 2015)
“The trial court properly precluded the defendant from cross-examining one of the complaining witnesses regarding a notarized statement which she had denied signing, and for which the notary could not be located. “[T]here must be a proper foundation laid for the introduction of prior inconsistent statements of a witness. In order to prevent surprise and give the witness the first opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistency between his [or her] testimony at trial and his [or her] previous statements, he [or she] must first be questioned as to the time, place and substance of the prior statement” (Peoplev Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80-81; see People v Weldon, 111 NY 569, 575-576; Richardson, Evidence [Prince 10th ed], § 502). “If the witness does not admit that he [or she] signed the statement[ ], the genuineness of the signature can be proved by any one or in any legal way. Such proof enables the impeaching party to properly offer the paper in evidence as a part of his [or her] case or, with the permission of the court, at any other stage of the trial” (Larkin v Nassau Elec. R.R. Co., 205 NY 267, 270). Where, as here, the party seeking to admit the writing into evidence has not proven the genuineness of the signature, “the writing cannot be read to the jury, or, provided it can be produced, used as a basis for a cross-examination as to its contents until it is in evidence”’ (Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 6-411[b], at 407 [Farrell 11th ed], quoting Larkin v Nassau Elec. R.R. Co., 205 NY at 270; see also People v Lyons, 112 AD3d 849, 850; People v Benson, 233 AD2d 749). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the trial court’s determination in this regard.”
This is interesting.
0 Responses
I do not know what’s going on here but if the Second Department stated that there could be no cross on that prior inconsistent statement then they are dumber or more fucking corrupt then anyone could have imagined.
A prior inconsistent statement on cross is not being used for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. It is being used to show inconsistency. Getting it into evidence is another discussion.
Like the fucking notary is going to remember the person — what assholes
Here Second Department:
Do you recall that on x date you said A,B,C, in a sworn written statement
No
[hand up document]
Does this refresh your recollection that on x date you swore to A, B, C,
no.
No? … Can I see the document … your name is blank — correct
Yes
And you were at Z on x date — correct
Yes
{etc.}
But you don’t recall swearing to A-B-C
The key is to use “recall” and “refresh”
If the courts stopped something like that they are idiots in the extreme.
No wonder why this shit country holds 25% of the entire world’s prison population.
Shit — 300 million in Amerika and 6.7 billion in the rest of the world.
I hope the Second Department is proud of the fact that they contributed to that stat …
“I never lied and signed that” How fucking easy is that to say.
This is how Nazi Germany got started.