april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

esponsive to the defense’s rhetorical question, “Why in a room
full of inmates, did not one inmate come forward to say that
Brian Henderson had anything to do with this” Nor was improper
prejudice likely from the prosecutor’s question as to the term
commonly used for inmates who testify against other inmates. Any
instances of improper remarks by the prosecutor were minor,
isolated, and harmless.
Cases in which it was held prejudicial to inform the jury of
the defendant’s incarcerated status (see e.g. People v Randolph,
18 AD3d 1013 [2005]) are inapposite where the jury was
necessarily aware from the outset that the case concerned an
assault among inmates at the Rikers Island detention facility
(see People v Wong, 163 AD2d 738 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 992
[1990]).
Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained
in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.
All concur except Catterson, J. who dissents
in a memorandum as follows:
50