Court of Appeals of New York

In a case where defendant was convicted on drug-related conspiracy and assault charges, denial of defendant's post-conviction motion to vacate his convictions on Brady and ineffective assistance of counsel grounds is affirmed where: 1) the Brady violation did not contribute to the guilty verdict, since defendant's counsel was aware during the trial of the information withheld by prosecutors; 2) no cognizable conflict of interest arose from the fact that defendant's attorney was aware of the exculpatory evidence, but did not act on it out of a desire not to reveal his source for the information; and 3) defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to act on the exculpatory information, because there would ultimately have been no way for defendant to present the information to the jury.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/20/2008
• Published 11/20/2008

Judges

Court

• Court of Appeals of New York

Counsel