In a municipal court, the defendant in this case is told by an officer to remove his hoodie. Fine. No problem. He then is asked to remove his head covering. Defendant refuses. Defendant is directed by the judge to leave the courtroom. Defendant complies, escorted by the officer.
Outside, there is a fracas. The beginning is off-camera, but it ends on camera. The officer says he was assaulted by Defendant. Defendant says he was mauled by the officer. The officer and another officer who came to assist the first officer both testify to the officer's version. Defendant and his girlfriend testify to Defendant's version.
Previously, Defendant obtained a domestic violence restraining order against his girlfriend. Defendant had dismissed the order against his girlfriend before the trial. At trial, the prosecutor has a field day with the order when cross examining Defendant and his girlfriend.
The Appellate Division reverses, holding:
1. Regarding the girlfriend: References to the domestic violence restraining order should have been sanitized to 'a court order'.
2. Regarding Defendant: In an assault case where credibility is at issue, when someone is the victim of domestic violence, you can't falsely imply they committed domestic violence with your cross-examination questions.
3. Regarding the Court: Your curative instruction dealing with that false implication should not leave it ambiguous whether the witness has a domestic violence restraining order issued against him.
No comments:
Post a Comment