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

Team 35 v 41
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: Nina Feldman and Michelle
Richman, for Appellant.
Kathryn Lippa and Michael
Eyerman for Respondent.
JUDGES: Orr, Mazzeo, Jacobs, Cicerelli,
Kappel, Sutton
OPINION BY: Last
OPINION
We the Appellate Court of the State of New
York find in favor of the Respondent,
Deidre Rubenstrunk. The Respondent
successfully argued that the standard
outlined in People v. Salemi does not need
to be satisfied and a new trial can be
awarded in the interest of justice.
The Appellant did not successfully argue
that the Respondents failed enough prongs
of the Salemi test to reverse the lower
court’s grant of a new trial. The Appellant
attempted to use the precedent case of The
People of the State of New York v.
Bernadette Powell to prove that all six
prongs of the Salemi test must be met to
grant a new trial, but were ultimately not
persuasive on this point. The Respondent
successfully countered this argument
through the use of People v. Balan which
asserts that all six elements do not need to
be met in the interest of justice.
The Respondent demonstrated to the court,
again using Balan, that when evidence is
trustworthy and material to the case, a new
trial must be granted. The two new
affidavits, presented to the court by Kelsey
Williford and Aaron Taggart, were deemed
trustworthy and successfully satisfied a
number of the elements in the Salemi test.
The Appellant adequately argued the two
separate confessions from Jane Henderson
would absolutely change the outcome of the
original trial and that this information would
not be brought in merely to impeach or
contradict Henderson’s original testimony.
Ultimately it was demonstrated by the
appellant that this information was
trustworthy and therefore a new trial is
necessary.
When considering the evidence surrounding
the severity of Logan Murphy’s mental
condition, and the discovery of dementia,
the appellant definitively proved that it
would be in the interest of justice for this
information to be brought into a newly
granted trial. The Appellant argued that this
information could have been discovered
before the trial but the Respondent
disproved this by stating that the disease is a
progressive disorder and that there was no
way for Rubenstrunk to know before or even
during the trial that Murphy was suffering
from dementia, especially at his young age.
Furthermore, this piece of evidence would
have a significant impact on the outcome of
the case because Murphy acted as the
primary witness in Rubenstrunk’s
conviction.
We agree with the decision of the lower
court and confirm that Deidre Rubenstrunk
should be granted a new trial.
67