Holding that, by imposing PRS terms, DOCS usurped the judicial function as defined by New York law; only the sentencing court has the authority to impose the PRS component of the sentence and must do so at the time of sentencing
Holding that “after release from prison, a legitimate expectation in the finality of a sentence arises and the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents reformation to attach a PRS component to the original completed sentence”
Finding that the closure of the court including the exclusion of defendant's family during the testimony of an accomplice cooperating witness violated defendant's right to a public trial, given that the witness had previously testified in front of defendant's parents, had testified that he did not fear defendant's family, and defendant had a greater interest in having her family present because of a language barrier
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9311 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 57 times
In Konstantinides, a witness specifically claimed that a defense lawyer asked her to lie (14 N.Y.3d at 6, 896 N.Y.S.2d 284, 923 N.E.2d 567); in Fulton, a witness had told prosecutors “that he had once imported heroin for Pulton's trial counsel” (5 F.3d at 606).