2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Team 30 v 36 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. DEIDRE RUBENSTRUNK, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York March 10, 2012, Argued March 10, 2012, Decided COUNSEL: Erin Clark and Hannah Crosby, for Appellant. Lauren Navarro and Jenna Maxwell for Respondent. JUDGES: Englemann, Walker, Dole, Galusha, Muthig OPINION We the Appellate Court of the State of New York find in favor of the respondent, Deidre Rubenstrunk. Although, the respondent failed to persuade the court that all factors of the Salemi test were met, they proved that the judges original ruling was supported by precedent case law. The respondents also made clear to the Court that this ruling was made in the interest of justice and was supported by trustworthy evidence. The test for this case was outlined in the matter of People v. Salemi. “( 1) such as will probably change the result if a new case is granted; (2) discovered since trial; (3) not discoverable before trial by due dilligence; (4) material to the issue; (5) not cumulative to the former issue; (6) not merely impeaching or contradicting former evidence.” The appellants adequately pointed out that several factors of that Salemi case were not met. First, the evidence of Logan Murphy's dementia was clearly cumulative because Murphy was extensively cross examined on his injuries in the original trial so this new evidence would be merely building on that. Additionally, the evidence as presented to the court is merely impeaching former testimony because Murphy's medical status serves only to discredit his original testimony. The prevailing argument in this case became whether or not the Salemi Test is necessary in determining if new evidence is sufficient grounds for a new trial. On this issue, the respondents cited the case of People v. Balan which allows a new trial even if the Salemi test is not met as long as it is in “the interest of justice” and complies with the statute for new evidence, CPL 440.10(g). The first part of the statue requires that the evidence be “such that would probably change the outcome of the case.” The respondents made apparent to the Court that Jane's admission of guilt coupled with Murphy's dementia was likely to change the outcome of the case. The second prong stipulates that it must be such that could not have been discovered before the trial. Once again, the respondent's proved that the evidence supported this because dementia is a condition that progresses over time and would therefore could not have been diagnosed before hand. The sworn statements were given only after Jane Henderson had admitted to the murder and the trial was over. Inasmuch, there was absolutely no way for the court to reasonably expect the respondents to uncover this beforehand even with due diligence. In People v. Powell the court noted that the Salemi case ”sets forth the criteria which must be satisfied to meet the newl discovered evidence standard of the statute.” Despite that legal precedent, we are compelled to agree with the respondent's argument that the matter of People v. Balan is the controlling precedent because it is the most recent case. The appellants compared our case to that of People v. Macon. However, we must recognize the clear distinctions between the two cases. In Macon, one of the major reasons a new trial was not granted was because they lacked sworn statements. Conversely, in the case at hand, as stated by the respondents, there were two sworn statements. The additional evidence of Murphy's dementia was obviously trustworthy because it was determined by a medical professional. In this matter, we find that there was not a lack of “trustworthy evidence” sufficient to necessitate a new trial We agree that “where there's smoke, there must be fire” as stated by the original trial judge and so in the interest of justice order a new trial be granted to Deidre Rubenstrunk. 61
Team 31 v 38 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK”, Appellant, v. DEIDRE RUBENSTRUNK, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York March 10, 2012, Argued March 10, 2012, Decided COUNSEL: Sarah Holl and Valerie Manghir, for Appellant. Ravneet Dhillion and Doug Palacios, for Respondent. JUDGES: Mallone, Al-Ajmi, Dhami, Vanini, King, Finan OPINION BY: Last OPINION We the Appellate Court of the State of New York find in favor of the respondent, Deidre Rubenstrunk. The respondent proved that a new trial may be granted without meeting all six factors of the Salemi test, which is used to find new evidence sufficient in court, if the evidence is in the interest of justice. In the case of People v. Salemi, it states that a new trial cannot be granted unless six criteria are satisfied. The appellant argued, through the use of People v. Powell, that all six elements of the test must be proven by the respondent in order for the decision of the lower court to be upheld. The respondent successfully countered this argument and cited the case of People v. Balan, a more recent precedent, in which the court “specifically found a new trial may be granted in the interest of justice. Through the Balan case, the respondents argued that a new trial can be granted without satisfying all elements of the test if the new evidence is trustworthy and in the interest of justice. We believe that the respondent successfully argued that although the new evidence obtained did not fully satisfy the Salemi test, it was both trustworthy and in the interest of justice. The respondents argued that Logan Murphy’s testimony was in the interest of justice. They stated from the first factor of the Salemi test that the discovery of Logan Murphy’s dementia would probably change the outcome of a new trial. The respondents then emphasized the third factor of the Salemi test in that the defense practiced due diligence because there would be no way to know about Logan Murphy’s dementia because it is a progressive disease. Finally, the respondents emphasized the sixth factor of the Salemi test that states “it must not be merely impeaching or contradicting the former evidence”. The respondents applied this by saying this knowledge of Logan’s dementia would not contradict his former testimony. The new evidence obtained would emphasize how memory loss could have affected Murphy’s testimony, something that was not discussed or examined in the previous trial. Also, the respondents successfully proved to us that the new evidence concerning Jane Henderson is also trustworthy and necessary for the pursuit of justice. They stated that the sworn affidavits from Kelsey Willford and Aaron Taggart, in which Jane Henderson admitted to being the killer, can be used in a new trial because it is probable that it will change the result of this new trial. It goes further to satisfy another element of the Salemi test because it was not discussed in the previous trial and therefore is not cumulative. We believe that the ruling of the original court should be upheld and that a new trial should be granted to Deidre Rubenstrunk despite her not satisfying the six factor Salemi test for her new evidence. 62
Page 1:
PROGRAM SPONSORED BY: PROGRAM SPON
Page 4 and 5:
2012 New York State YMCA Youth & Go
Page 6 and 7:
New York State YMCA Foundation, Inc
Page 8 and 9:
DISTRICT 6 Clark Cayla Kenney Tess
Page 10 and 11:
New York State YMCA Youth and Gover
Page 12 and 13:
Clement A. Duran Delegate Scholarsh
Page 14 and 15:
Selected delegates to represent New
Page 16 and 17:
Delegates elected by their teen pee
Page 18 and 19:
#1 Best Firm - B Respondent Mary St
Page 20 and 21:
Let’s take a look at a fairly con
Page 22 and 23:
Executive Bill Decisions Governor P
Page 24 and 25:
indefinitely press charges against
Page 26 and 27:
10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15
Page 28 and 29: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 30 and 31: 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15
Page 32 and 33: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 34 and 35: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 36 and 37: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Page 38 and 39: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 40 and 41: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 42 and 43: Legislative Branch Activity Senate
Page 44 and 45: Topics of Passed Assembly Bills AL-
Page 46 and 47: Chief Justice Halle-Anne Orr 2012 J
Page 48 and 49: TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorit
Page 50 and 51: argument. Flynn Jebb also testified
Page 52 and 53: of materiality after listening to a
Page 54 and 55: CONCLUSION The Appellant’s reques
Page 56 and 57: Attorney General Judicial Review Co
Page 58 and 59: Chief Justice Decision Atrion Raimu
Page 60 and 61: Team 1 v 11 MARK RUTKOWSKI, Appella
Page 66 and 67: Case B 2012 Raphael Ortega, Appella
Page 68 and 69: Team 17 v 24 RAPHAEL ORTEGA Appella
Page 76 and 77: Case C 2012 The People of the State
Page 80 and 81: Team 34 v 39 THE PEOPLE OF THE STAT
Page 86 and 87: Team 43 v 54 CHUCK MAZE ON BEHALF O
show all

2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?