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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Team 34 v 37 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 Majadji, for Appellant. Sarah Busso and Olivia Corder, for Respondent. JUDGES: Mallone, Al-Ajmi, Dhami, Vanini, King, Finan OPINION BY: Last OPINION We, the Appellate Court of the State of New York, rule in favor of the appellant. We believe that the trial judge erred in granting Diedre a new trial because she did not meet all six factors of the Salemi Test. The test for the admission of newly discovered evidence, as stated in the case of New York v. Salemi contains six points that explain that “Newly-discovered evidence in order to be sufficient must fulfill all the following requirements: 1. It must be such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; 2. It must have been discovered since the trial; 3. It must be such as could have not been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; 4. It must be material to the issue; 5. It must not be cumulative to the former issue; and, 6. It must not be merely impeaching or contradicting the former evidence.” The appellant successfully proved Logan Murphy’s failure to comply with the Salemi Test based upon the fifth factor of the test. The appellant’s argument, consisting of the effects of dementia, was sufficient to show that any alleged evidence regarding the discovery of Murphy’s condition was cumulative to the evidence put forth at the initial trial. Thus, not complying with the fifth factor of the Salemi Test has discredited the respondents claim to Murphy constituting as newly discovered evidence. The appellant also successfully proved Jane Henderson’s failure to comply with the Salemi test based upon the first factor of the test. Due to her inebriated state, Henderson’s credibility in her statements to Aaron is compromised and is thus untrustworthy. This lack of credibility would prevent a different outcome in a new trial based upon CPL Section 440.30 as shown underlined in the case of New York v. Macon. In addition, the appellant’s argument regarding the interpretation of the Salemi Test sufficed to show that all six factors must be met in order for a new trial to be granted as stated by the case of New York v. Powell. Although the respondent posed the argument that the court should consider the testimony trustworthy and in the interest of justice, thus complying with the interpretation as set by People v. Balan, they failed to show that the evidence in our case was either trustworthy or in the pursuit of justice. Based upon the reasons above, we rule in favor of the appellant and move to overturn the lower court’s decision. 65
Team 30 v 40 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. Massitan Fafana and Karman Saini, for Respondent. JUDGES: Dewitt, Domagola, Parakkatu, Blaszczyk, Furia OPINION We the Appellant Court of the State of New York finds in favor of the respondent, Diedre Rubenstrunk. The court finds that Deidre deserves a new trial based on the premise that she met all six factors of the test outlined in Salemi v. State of New York. The respondent proved that Deidre deserved a new trial due to the fact that new evidence exists. As cited in the case of People v. Salemi, newly discovered evidence needs to pass a six prong test in order to be sufficient in court. The case outlines that the respondent must satisfy the following: 1. It must be such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted, 2. It must been discovered since the trial, 3. It must be such as could have not been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence, 4. It must be material to the issue, 5. It must not be cumulative to the former issue, and 6. It must not be merely impeaching or contradicting the former evidence. The respondent proved that the outcome of the case would most likely change if evidence was presented that the trial’s primary witness, Logan Murphy, is suffering from dementia and memory loss. Furthermore, the respondent confirmed that Logan’s condition could only have been discovered after the trial, proving that element two of the Salemi test is satisfied. The respondent successfully argued that all six elements were met and that testimony concerning Logan’s mental competency is material to the case and it would not serve to merely impeach the witness or to be cumulative. New evidence was also found in the testimonies of Kelsey Williford and Aaron Taggert concerning Jane Henderson. The respondent adequately proved that the two legal documents stating that Jane Henderson had admitted murdering Brian Rubenstrunk, strongly satisfied the six elements of the Salemi test. As the case of People v. Macon states, and the respondent confirms, a sworn statement carries more merit than an unsworn statement. The testimony of Williford and Taggart requires a new trial because the new evidence was not cumulative or contradicting because these testimonies were not brought forth in the first trial. The respondent clearly stated that this case is unlike People v. Powell, were the evidence was in fact cumulative. We agree with the lower court’s decision to grant Deidre Rubenstrunk a new trial on the premise that she meets all six factors as set forth in the case of The People v. Salemi. Additionally, there were two different sworn affidavits from Kelsey Williford and Aaron Taggert. The sworn statements also came about a month after the trial. The third criterion of the test says that the evidence has to have not been able to be discovered before the trial with the exercise of due diligence. The respondent adequately proved that Deidre could not have known this information before the trial because Kelsey was not going to say that Jane committed the murder, when she was a suspect herself. The respondent argued that She felt safe coming out with the statement after she had been cleared on the accounts of murder, and therefore no longer had a reason not to tell the truth under oath. The fourth prong states that the evidence must be material to the issue and Logan’s newly discovered dementia was completely material due to the fact that his testimony may be unreliable. The evidence of possibility that Jane committed the murder is also material because Deidre may be kept in jail for a crime she did not commit. The respondent also proved that the evidence was not cumulative unlike the case of People v. Powell. The evidence was not cumulative because Jane’s possible affair was never brought up in the trial because the Judge did not give any leeway due to the fact that no picture was present. The final factor of the Salemi test was proven when the respondent proved that none of the evidence contradicted the evidence presented in the trial. Deidre now had sworn affidavits accusing Jane of the murder, which had not been done in the original trial. As the case of People v. Macon states, a sworn statement carries more merit than a unsworn statement. Logan’s dementia was not contradicting because he was only tested on his mental state rather than memory loss which occurs when someone is diagnosed with dementia. We agree with the lower court’s decision to grant Deidre Rubenstrunk a new trial on the premise that she meets all six factors of the Salemi test. 66
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?