People v. Ahmed

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Ahmed

233 N.E.2d 854, 20 N.Y.2d 958, 286 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1049

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 7, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 233 N.E.2d 854 (People v. Ahmed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ahmed, 233 N.E.2d 854, 20 N.Y.2d 958, 286 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1049 (N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The failure of the prosecution to disclose to defense counsel before or during defendant’s trial the inability of the robbery victim on the night of the robbery to identify defendant from a police photograph of him, together with the [960]*960highly suggestive police station identification procedures used here, seriously undermines the credit to which the jury’s determination of guilt in this case is entitled. “ That the district attorney’s silence was not the result of guile or a desire to prejudice matters little, for its impact was the same, preventing, as it did, a trial that could in any real sense be termed fair ’ ’ (People v. Savvides, 1 N Y 2d 554, 557; see, also, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, 87-88). Over and above this error, the defendant would be entitled to a remand to the trial court for consideration of the effect upon the in-court identifications of the improper “ show-ups ” conducted at the police station (see People v. Ballott, 20 N Y 2d 600).

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel concur.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum. The failure of the prosecution to disclose to defense counsel before or during defendant’s trial the inability of the robbery victim on the night of the robbery to identify defendant from a police photograph of him, together with the [960]*960highly suggestive police station identification procedures used here, seriously undermines the credit to which the jury’s determination of guilt in this case is entitled. “ That the district attorney’s silence was not the result of guile or a desire to prejudice matters little, for its impact was the same, preventing, as it did, a trial that could in any real sense be termed fair ’ ’ (People v. Savvides, 1 N Y 2d 554, 557; see, also, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, 87-88). Over and above this error, the defendant would be entitled to a remand to the trial court for consideration of the effect upon the in-court identifications of the improper “ show-ups ” conducted at the police station (see People v. Ballott, 20 N Y 2d 600).

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel concur.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 N.E.2d 854, 20 N.Y.2d 958, 286 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ahmed-ny-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack