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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Team 34 v 39 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: Fatomauta Majadjifor, for Appellant. Kenny Reynolds and Philip Yeh, for Respondent. JUDGES: Dewitt, Domagola, Parakkatu, Blaszczyk, Furia OPINION BY: Last OPINION We the Appellate Court of the State of New York find in favor of the appellant, the State of New York. The appellant sufficiently proved that Deidre Rubenstrunk did not meet the test outlined in People v. Salemi, and therefore did not earn a new trial. The main issue of the case is whether Rubenstrunk met all six factors of the test in People v. Salemi. The six factors of the Salemi test determine the conditions under which a new trial can be ordered. The factors are: it must be such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted, it must have been discovered since the trial, it must be such as could have not been discovered before the trial by exercise of die diligence, it must be material to the issue, and it must not be merely impeaching or contradicting the former evidence. The appellant emphasized that in order for the standard to be met, it is essential for all six elements to be proven. The respondent argued that all elements of the Salemi test do not need to be met if the evidence presented is overwhelmingly trustworthy and in the interest of justice by citing the case of People v. Balan. The appellant proved that Balan is trumped by the case of People v. Powell, which states that the six element standard is a necessary precedent. Furthermore, the appellant demonstrated that the failure of one element of the Salemi test must result in no retrial being granted. The appellant successfully argued that in order for new evidence to be found worthy, the defendant must have practiced due diligence in finding this evidence previously and that it could not have been found until after the trial had occurred. The appellant demonstrated that the respondent has failed to prove these elements on both counts. Logan Murphy's injury and corresponding mental competency were well know before the original trial and the discovery of a mental condition only proves that Rubenstrunk did not practice due diligence when examining witnesses previously. Furthermore, a sworn affidavit from Kelsey Willaford claiming Jane's guilt could have been obtained before the trial because the statement was made prior to the original proceedings. In failing the second and third elements of the Selami test, Rubenstrunk is not entitled to a new trial. We believe that the decision of the lower courts should be upheld, and that Deidre Rubenstrunk should not receive a new trial. 63
Team 31 v 62 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. Seth Steele and Kalia Hoope for Respondent. JUDGES: Englemann, Walker, Dole, Galusha, Muthig OPINION We the Appellate Court of the State of New York find in favor of the Appellant, the People of the State of New York. The appellant showed that the decision should be overturned because the prongs in the Salemi case were not met. The appellant succeeded in this by proving that there was no new evidence presented and Deidre’s defense did not express due diligence in the original trial. The appellant showed that Deidre provided no newly discovered evidence through the sixprong Salemi test. The first prong states “New evidence will probably change the result at trial”. The appellant demonstrated that both the testimonies of Logan Murphy and Aaron and Kelsey would not be new evidence. Logan was extensively cross examined for memory loss prior to the trial and because there was no sworn affidavit for Jane’s testimony, respectively. The second prong states that the “evidence must have been discovered since the trial.” This prong was also not met because the information about both Jane and Logan was discovered prior to the trial. Also, the appellant proved that the respond did not meet the third prong of the test. The third prong is that “evidence could not have been discovered before trial, even with due diligence”. The appellant showed that Deidre’s defense failed to exercise due diligence in the case of both Logan and Jane. In the case of Salemi, the new information about the witness going to a mental hospital did not pass this third factor because they knew of the mental illness before the trial. Similar to our case, the defense should have known about Logan’s dementia and they also cross examined him about the memory loss. Moreover, they should also have known about Jane’s guilt prior to try because she admitted to killing Brian to Kelsey prior to trial. The appellant was also successful in proving that Deidre failed to fulfill the fifth prong that states that “evidence is not cumulative to the former issue.” Moving to the final issue, the evidence was cumulative to that in the original trial because it was already considered. As mentioned above, the fact that Logan had dementia already came to light in the original trial when he was extensively cross examined and Jane was cross-examined about her possible motive to kill Brian. In sum, regarding the Salemi factors, the appellant successfully demonstrated through the facts of the case that Deidre failed to meet the factors. Next, the appellants successfully argued that the “interest of justice” argument found in People v. Balan was not a proper basis for granting a new trial unless the Salemi test was satisfied. People v. Balan states as follows: “Assuming that the court has the inherent discretion to grant a motion which is not in compliance with the statute the interest of justice does not require that such relief be granted here, given the wholly untrustworthy nature of defendant’s papers….” Here, there was no trustworthy evidence, so the interest of justice argument does not apply to the case at hand. While the respondent attempted to argue that all six factors of the Salemi test did not have to be met in order for a new trial to be granted, the case of People v. Powell states “[t]he power to grant an order for a new trial, based upon newly discovered evidence, is purely statutory and such a power may be exercised by the court only when the requirements of the statute have been satisfied, the determination of which rests in the sound discretion of the court”. Because the respondents failed to meet all six of these prongs, it is clear that no new trial can be granted. We overrule the decision of the lower court and hold that no new trial be granted. 64
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 78 and 79: Team 30 v 36 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?