Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Antonio BLAKE, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered May 18, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and bail jumping in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied his right to a public trial (see, U.S. Const. 6th Amend.; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4; People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 418 N.Y.S.2d 359, 391 N.E.2d 1335, cert. denied 444 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 307, 62 L.Ed.2d 315) because the Supreme Court excluded his brother and cousin from the courthouse during the testimony of an undercover officer. We disagree. During the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 334 N.Y.S.2d 885, 286 N.E.2d 265, cert. denied 410 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 970, 35 L.Ed.2d 273), the defendant objected to the exclusion of his brother and cousin. When a defendant seeks to limit closure to permit the attendance of certain individuals, the People must present evidence that those individuals threaten the safety of the witness (see, People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426, 660 N.Y.S.2d 858, 683 N.E.2d 764; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817, 633 N.Y.S.2d 470, 657 N.E.2d 491; People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54, 571 N.Y.S.2d 436, 574 N.E.2d 1042; People v. Scott, 237 A.D.2d 544, 656 N.Y.S.2d 908; People v. Gayle, 237 A.D.2d 532, 655 N.Y.S.2d 581; People v. Johnson, 222 A.D.2d 456, 635 N.Y.S.2d 49). Here, the officer testified, inter alia, that he had ongoing undercover operations and investigations within the locale of the arrest, that he would be returning to that location within days of his testimony, and that if his identity were revealed, his safety and cases would be endangered. The defendant's brother and cousin lived within the area of the undercover operations, and the officer reasonably feared that they would be able to identify him during these operations, jeopardizing himself and his team (see, People v. Feliciano, 228 A.D.2d 519, 644 N.Y.S.2d 307; see also, People v. Dorcas, 218 A.D.2d 813, 630 N.Y.S.2d 796; People v. Powell, 246 A.D.2d 494, 667 N.Y.S.2d 988; People v. Yung, 240 A.D.2d 252, 659 N.Y.S.2d 733).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 04, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)