UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
WILLIAM FIGUEROA, Petitioner, 20-cv-3013 (JGK)
- against ~ ORDER
KEYSER, Respondent. eee JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The Court has received the attached letter from the
petitioner. The petitioner apparently geeks to have this Court
intervene in a state court proceeding. The petitioner has a
petition for habeas corpus pending in this Court. The petition
has been stayed pending the exhaustion of state court remedies.
The petitioner must exhaust his state court remedies before
seeking relief from this Court. The Court will mail a copy of
+his Order to the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York me V. May 28, 2021 = ( I elf gohn G. Koeltl ated States District Judge
\BLECTRONICALLY FILED | Pi a am oh . et
Mr. William Figueroa-91-A-2142 Sullivan Correctional Facility P.O. Box 116 Fallsburg, New York May 24, 2021
Hon. John G. Koeltl United States District J udge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United State Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Figueroa v. Keyser, No. 20 Civ. 3013 (JGR) (RWL)
Dear Hon. Koeltl:
Lam writing to request that this Honorable Court intervene on my behalf in regard to a
failure of disclosure by the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, On June 5th 1990, there was
4 discussion between Hon. Justice Michael L. Pesce and the trial prosecutor, Marianne Crosley’s
Esq., concerning pretrial disclosure of a copy of conference pre-trial transcripts. Thereafter, these
conference | pre-trial transcripts were ordered sealed by Hon. Justice Michael L. Pesce.
Nevertheless, the discussion between Hon. Pesce, ADA Crosley was about non-disclosed DD-5
reports numbered 176 and 197, in my case, with which to reveal known exculpatory evidence
which otherwise might be overlooked by the Court. Neither my trial counsel nor 1 was aware of;
nor waived the right to be present at these discussions. □
CIVE\() iP vay 2% POE
SHANBERS OF -KOELTL _ SOMNYS Ds. □
POINT ONE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO DISCLOSURE TO THE PETITIONER EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER A. Prosecutors Cannot Decided What Evidence May Be helpful to the Defense.
This is not as complicated case and illustrates how prosecutors routinely misconstrue their
Brady obligations. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application as it is independent of
the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2).' The key particulars of the evidence here
in question is stated in the Due Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No. 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct.
21, 2020), which compels the government fo confirm the Government's disclosure obligations
under Brady Vv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, ensures the government discloses
to the defense all information “favorable to an accused” that is “material either to guilt or
punishment” and known to the government. Id. at 87.
The government has a moral and legal obligation to disclose impeachable and exculpatory
deficiencies in its prosecution, among others, when such is not founded on probable cause because
critical evidence, which was or should have been transferred to counsel for the accused under
Brady _v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), and was, in any event widely known, proving decisively
that there was third-party culpability, 2 that had been either abandoned or never explored by the
defense counsel due to the Government’s withholding, interfering with the reliability of the
declarant’s statement being demonstrated as “supportive evidence [that]‘establishes reasonable
1 Therefore, subsection (D} may be applicable. See MecQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 388-89 (2013) {stating that if
the petition alleges newly discovered evidence, the filing deadline is calculated based on §2244(d)(1)(0)}-
2 Moreover, in People v. DiPippo, 82 A.D.2d 786 (24 Dept. 2011), the Second Department vacating conviction on
Eayrth 6440.10 motion, where defendant showed. substantial evidence of third-party culpability, which not NO wat anding any permissive bar, which may exist.
possibility that the statement might be true” [See: People v. DiPippo, 27 N.Y.3d 127, 137-38
(2016 Citing People v. Bell, 9021 WL 865420 (Sup. Co. Queens County, 2021) (Evidence that
other individuals may be responsible for the crimes for which an accused stand charged is
favorable to his defense, for purpose of the People’s disclosure obligations under Brady)]. °
In this case, seven days after the crime was committed, a witness, Eddie Garcia identified
Manuel Rivera as the shooter. Subsequently, during a police interview conducted by Police Officer
Rosario, Eddie Garcia stated again, Manuel Rivera shot and killed Maria Hernandez. However,
the Eddie Garcia information was suppressed, and ! became the attention of the police
investigation. It is unknown. how became I became the target of the police investigation. Manuel
_ Rivera were never approached or interro gated by investigators. The evidence in question was never
considered by the jury at (rial or the presenting judge at sentencing during the proceedings before
this Court. It remains obscured behind a facade of false confession, and false framing of issues in
this case."
- _ Consequently, I was arrested along with my codefendant, tried and convicted for a crime
- in which evidence was withheld. Eventually Two DD-5 reports were provided to me in 2018, when
I submitted a pro se 440.10 motion. Actually, they were in the D.A.’s opposing papers. The two
DD-5 reports numbered 160 and 202 related to Eddie Garcia, and were never given to the defense,
during trial. While DD-5 reports 160 and 202 was inchuded in the D.A.’s opposing papers, it is
.
3 The recent decision People v. DiPippo, 27 N.Y.3d at 137, the Court of Appeals has revisited the ‘wrong person’ defense in which a defendant offers evidence that a third party committed the crime. Stressing that the quality of proof of third-party culpability can vary depending on the nature of a case, the court held that, under certain circumstances, an offer of proof can consist of hearsay evidence with understanding that the defendant will be prepared at a trial to present the evidence in admissible form. in addition, the court held that the standard of admissibility for evidence of third-party guilt does not infringe upon a defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense [See People v. Krivak, 168 A.D.3d 979 (2° Dept. 2019) (defendant is entitled to a hearing on a
motion to vacate a conviction) (quoting People v. Jones, 24 N.¥.3d 623, 634(2014)]. mannan of false confessions Is genuine has
DD-5 reports 176 & 197 that lam asking the Honorable Court to intervene on my behalf and order
the Kings County District Attorney’s Office to turn over. As DD-5 reports 160 and 202 revealed,
an eyewitness, Eddie Garcia identified the shooter. However, these DD-5 reports were never
turned over to defense counsel, to investigate for purposes of finding the real shooter. And for the
same reason I ask the Honorable Court to have DD-5 reports 176 and 197 turned over.
The question is whether the trial Court’s decision was tainted by legal error or
misunderstanding. In fact, the petitioner recently discovered through one of his co-defendant’s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
WILLIAM FIGUEROA, Petitioner, 20-cv-3013 (JGK)
- against ~ ORDER
KEYSER, Respondent. eee JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The Court has received the attached letter from the
petitioner. The petitioner apparently geeks to have this Court
intervene in a state court proceeding. The petitioner has a
petition for habeas corpus pending in this Court. The petition
has been stayed pending the exhaustion of state court remedies.
The petitioner must exhaust his state court remedies before
seeking relief from this Court. The Court will mail a copy of
+his Order to the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York me V. May 28, 2021 = ( I elf gohn G. Koeltl ated States District Judge
\BLECTRONICALLY FILED | Pi a am oh . et
Mr. William Figueroa-91-A-2142 Sullivan Correctional Facility P.O. Box 116 Fallsburg, New York May 24, 2021
Hon. John G. Koeltl United States District J udge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United State Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Figueroa v. Keyser, No. 20 Civ. 3013 (JGR) (RWL)
Dear Hon. Koeltl:
Lam writing to request that this Honorable Court intervene on my behalf in regard to a
failure of disclosure by the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, On June 5th 1990, there was
4 discussion between Hon. Justice Michael L. Pesce and the trial prosecutor, Marianne Crosley’s
Esq., concerning pretrial disclosure of a copy of conference pre-trial transcripts. Thereafter, these
conference | pre-trial transcripts were ordered sealed by Hon. Justice Michael L. Pesce.
Nevertheless, the discussion between Hon. Pesce, ADA Crosley was about non-disclosed DD-5
reports numbered 176 and 197, in my case, with which to reveal known exculpatory evidence
which otherwise might be overlooked by the Court. Neither my trial counsel nor 1 was aware of;
nor waived the right to be present at these discussions. □
CIVE\() iP vay 2% POE
SHANBERS OF -KOELTL _ SOMNYS Ds. □
POINT ONE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO DISCLOSURE TO THE PETITIONER EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER A. Prosecutors Cannot Decided What Evidence May Be helpful to the Defense.
This is not as complicated case and illustrates how prosecutors routinely misconstrue their
Brady obligations. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application as it is independent of
the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2).' The key particulars of the evidence here
in question is stated in the Due Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No. 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct.
21, 2020), which compels the government fo confirm the Government's disclosure obligations
under Brady Vv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, ensures the government discloses
to the defense all information “favorable to an accused” that is “material either to guilt or
punishment” and known to the government. Id. at 87.
The government has a moral and legal obligation to disclose impeachable and exculpatory
deficiencies in its prosecution, among others, when such is not founded on probable cause because
critical evidence, which was or should have been transferred to counsel for the accused under
Brady _v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), and was, in any event widely known, proving decisively
that there was third-party culpability, 2 that had been either abandoned or never explored by the
defense counsel due to the Government’s withholding, interfering with the reliability of the
declarant’s statement being demonstrated as “supportive evidence [that]‘establishes reasonable
1 Therefore, subsection (D} may be applicable. See MecQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 388-89 (2013) {stating that if
the petition alleges newly discovered evidence, the filing deadline is calculated based on §2244(d)(1)(0)}-
2 Moreover, in People v. DiPippo, 82 A.D.2d 786 (24 Dept. 2011), the Second Department vacating conviction on
Eayrth 6440.10 motion, where defendant showed. substantial evidence of third-party culpability, which not NO wat anding any permissive bar, which may exist.
possibility that the statement might be true” [See: People v. DiPippo, 27 N.Y.3d 127, 137-38
(2016 Citing People v. Bell, 9021 WL 865420 (Sup. Co. Queens County, 2021) (Evidence that
other individuals may be responsible for the crimes for which an accused stand charged is
favorable to his defense, for purpose of the People’s disclosure obligations under Brady)]. °
In this case, seven days after the crime was committed, a witness, Eddie Garcia identified
Manuel Rivera as the shooter. Subsequently, during a police interview conducted by Police Officer
Rosario, Eddie Garcia stated again, Manuel Rivera shot and killed Maria Hernandez. However,
the Eddie Garcia information was suppressed, and ! became the attention of the police
investigation. It is unknown. how became I became the target of the police investigation. Manuel
_ Rivera were never approached or interro gated by investigators. The evidence in question was never
considered by the jury at (rial or the presenting judge at sentencing during the proceedings before
this Court. It remains obscured behind a facade of false confession, and false framing of issues in
this case."
- _ Consequently, I was arrested along with my codefendant, tried and convicted for a crime
- in which evidence was withheld. Eventually Two DD-5 reports were provided to me in 2018, when
I submitted a pro se 440.10 motion. Actually, they were in the D.A.’s opposing papers. The two
DD-5 reports numbered 160 and 202 related to Eddie Garcia, and were never given to the defense,
during trial. While DD-5 reports 160 and 202 was inchuded in the D.A.’s opposing papers, it is
.
3 The recent decision People v. DiPippo, 27 N.Y.3d at 137, the Court of Appeals has revisited the ‘wrong person’ defense in which a defendant offers evidence that a third party committed the crime. Stressing that the quality of proof of third-party culpability can vary depending on the nature of a case, the court held that, under certain circumstances, an offer of proof can consist of hearsay evidence with understanding that the defendant will be prepared at a trial to present the evidence in admissible form. in addition, the court held that the standard of admissibility for evidence of third-party guilt does not infringe upon a defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense [See People v. Krivak, 168 A.D.3d 979 (2° Dept. 2019) (defendant is entitled to a hearing on a
motion to vacate a conviction) (quoting People v. Jones, 24 N.¥.3d 623, 634(2014)]. mannan of false confessions Is genuine has
DD-5 reports 176 & 197 that lam asking the Honorable Court to intervene on my behalf and order
the Kings County District Attorney’s Office to turn over. As DD-5 reports 160 and 202 revealed,
an eyewitness, Eddie Garcia identified the shooter. However, these DD-5 reports were never
turned over to defense counsel, to investigate for purposes of finding the real shooter. And for the
same reason I ask the Honorable Court to have DD-5 reports 176 and 197 turned over.
The question is whether the trial Court’s decision was tainted by legal error or
misunderstanding. In fact, the petitioner recently discovered through one of his co-defendant’s
prior motions, that the prosecution has continuously withheld DD-5’s (176 and 197). And that is
the reason why trial counsel cannot point to a written document that was withheld. Upon further,
review defendant learned of the existence of DD-S's (176 and 197), and that Santiago's counsel
“complained” on the record that these documents were never disclosed. Upon further review of
his own papers, defendant discovered for the first time that he also did_not receive DD-5's
Numbered 176 and □□□ In their response, the People are clearly being disingenuous when it
claimed that Santiago received these DD-5's on May 17, 1990, but as noted below in support of
his claim that the People, never disclosed DD-5's Numbered (176 and 197), the People readily and
without hesitation supplied defendant and this Court with copies of DD-5's Numbered (160 and
2.02) in its opposition however, again denying Or delaying to disclose DD-5's (176 and 197).
It is obvious that the People are still attempting to withheld and deny DD-5's (176 and 197),
Brady material from defendant stil today. Moreover, this is the defendant’s one of many issues
in his request to this court to erant an evidentiary hearing in good faith. These are continuing
obligation that apply to jnaterials that become known to the People, even after trial, and even if
the People does not credit them. The suppression of favorable information violates a defendant’s
richt to due process irrespective of prosecutor’s good or bad faith and may setting aside a
conviction, Wherefore, I respectfully ask the Court to intervene in this matter by ordering to the Kings
County District Attorney’s Office to tur over DD-5 reports 176 and 197.
Yours a William Figueroa
CC: Mr. Mathew Keller Assistant Attorney General 28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 (212) 416-6072