Oddone Decision, Court of Appeals

8/13/2019 Oddone Decision, Court of Appeals

1/13

=================================================================Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n the New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 236The Peopl e &c. , Respondent , v.Ant hony Oddone, Appel l ant .

Mar c Wol i nsky, f or appel l ant .Anne E. Oh, f or r espondent .I nnocence Proj ect , I nc. and New Yor k Ci t y Bar

Associ at i on, ami ci cur i ae.

SMI TH, J . :

Def endant was convi ct ed of mansl aught er i n t he f i r st

degr ee f or causi ng t he death of a man by hol di ng hi m i n a

headl ock. The dur at i on of t he headl ock was an i mport ant i ssue at

t r i al . Def endant ar gues t hat sever al of t he t r i al cour t ' s

r ul i ngs i n admi t t i ng and excl udi ng evi dence r el at ed t o t hat i ssue

- 1 -


2/13

- 2 - No. 236

wer e mi st aken. As t o one of t hose r ul i ngs - - t he cour t ' s ref usal

t o per mi t def endant t o r ef r esh hi s wi t ness' s r ecol l ect i on wi t h a

st atement t he wi t ness had pr evi ousl y gi ven - - we agr ee wi t h

def endant , and or der a new t r i al .

I

The vi ct i m, Andr ew Rei st er , was a bouncer i n a bar . On

t he ni ght i n quest i on, def endant and a young woman were i n t he

bar , danci ng on a t abl e. Rei st er asked def endant t o get of f t he

t abl e, def endant r ef used, and Rei st er pushed hi m of f . Ther e

f ol l owed a f i ght . I n shor t or der , def endant got behi nd Rei st er

and put hi s ar ms ar ound hi s neck; one of def endant ' s hands was

gr aspi ng t he ot her . Af t er an i nt er val , Rei st er f el l t o t he f l oor

and def endant f el l on t op of hi m, not r el easi ng hi s gr i p, t hough

Rei st er seemed t o onl ooker s t o be unconsci ous. Sever al peopl e

scr eamed at def endant t o l et Rei st er go, and some t r i ed wi t hout

success t o pul l def endant away. Fi nal l y, def endant l et go and

r an out of t he bar , l eavi ng Rei st er unconsci ous on t he f l oor .

Rei st er was decl ared br ai n dead t wo days l ater .

Def endant was i ndi ct ed f or mur der and rel i ed on a

def ense of j ust i f i cat i on ( sel f - def ense) . At hi s t r i al , t he

Peopl e asked seven of t hei r wi t nesses t o est i mat e t he dur at i on of

t he headl ock. The est i mat es var i ed, but most put t he t ot al t i me,

begi nni ng when def endant ' s arms f i r st went around Rei st er ' s neck

and endi ng when he r el eased hi m, at somewher e near t hree mi nut es.

Two def ense wi t nesses gave shor t er est i mat es; by t hei r t el l i ng,

- 2 -


3/13

- 3 - No. 236

t he headl ock may have l ast ed l ess t han a mi nut e.

The j ury acqui t t ed def endant of murder , but convi ct ed

hi m of mansl aught er i n t he f i r st degr ee ( causi ng deat h wi t h t he

i nt ent t o cause ser i ous physi cal i nj ur y [ Penal Law 125. 20 ( 1) ] )

as a l esser i ncl uded of f ense. The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med

( Peopl e v Oddone, 89 AD3d 868 [ 2d Dept 2011] ) . A J udge of t hi s

Cour t grant ed l eave t o appeal ( 20 NY3d 1102 [ 2013] ) , and we now

r ever se and or der a new t r i al .

II

Of t he i ssues r ai sed by def endant on thi s appeal , we

f i nd t hr ee - - al l r el at ed t o what wi t nesses wer e or wer e not

al l owed t o say about t he dur at i on of t he headl ock - - t hat cal l

f or di scussi on. Def endant chal l enges t he f ol l owi ng evi dent i ar y

r ul i ngs:

( 1) J ames Wi l son, t he doct or who per f ormed an aut opsy

on Rei st er ' s body, was per mi t t ed t o t est i f y t hat i n hi s opi ni on

Rei st er ' s neck had been compr essed f or "somethi ng i n t he range of

2, 3, 4 mi nut es. "

( 2) When Megan Fl ynn, a def ense wi t ness, t est i f i ed

t hat t he dur at i on of t he par t of t he i nci dent she obser ved "coul d

have been a mi nut e or so, " def ense counsel was not al l owed t o

r ef r esh her r ecol l ect i on wi t h a pr i or st at ement t hat put t he same

i nt er val at "maybe 6 t o 10 seconds. "

( 3) St even Penr od, an exper t i n eyewi t ness

obser vat i on, was not per mi t t ed t o t est i f y t hat eyewi t nesses

- 3 -


4/13

- 4 - No. 236

r out i nel y over est i mat e, by a l ar ge mar gi n, t he dur at i on of

r el at i vel y br i ef event s.

We r ej ect def endant ' s at t ack on Wi l son' s t est i mony. We

agr ee wi t h def endant t hat t he r est r i ct i on pl aced on hi s

quest i oni ng of Fl ynn was er r or r equi r i ng a new t r i al . Whet her

t he excl usi on of Penr od' s t est i mony was an abuse of di scr et i on i s

a cl ose quest i on t hat we do not need t o deci de, but we of f er some

obser vat i ons about i t f or t he gui dance of t he cour t at a r et r i al .

A. Wilson

Wi l son, a deput y medi cal exami ner , i nf er r ed a 2- 4

mi nut e dur at i on f or t he headl ock pr i nci pal l y f r om t wo f act s: hi s

own observat i on at t he aut opsy of "pet echi ae" - - r ed spot s caused

by bur st i ng of bl ood vessel s - - on and ar ound Rei st er ' s eyes; and

t he obser vat i ons of sever al wi t nesses t hat , by t he t i me t he

i nci dent ended, Rei st er ' s f ace had t ur ned pur pl e. As to t he

pet echi ae, Wi l son t est i f i ed:

"Q. Coul d you t el l us, Doct or i n yourexper i ence how l ong i t woul d t ake f or t hi st ype of pet echi a t o be pr esent i n Mr .Rei st er ' s - - ar ound hi s eyes, i n t he ski nsur r oundi ng hi s eyes?

"A. Wel l , i n my exper i ence and under st andi ngof how t hi s pr ocess occur s an i nj ur y of t hi ssor t woul d t ake mat t er of a f ew mi nut es, 2, 3per haps 4, wi t h neck compressi on on t ype someki nd of a st r uggl e. So t her e may be sl i ght

var i at i ons i n t he pr essur e f r om t i me t o t i me,but mat t er of a f ew mi nut es, somet hi ng i n ther ange of 2, 3, 4 mi nut es. "

Si mi l ar l y, as t o t he di scol or at i on of Rei st er ' s f ace,

Wi l son t est i f i ed:

- 4 -


5/13

- 5 - No. 236

"Q. I n your opi ni on, Doct or , how l ong woul di t t ake f or t he bl ood i n t he vei ns t hat i snot abl e - - t hat i s bei ng squeezed and kepti n t he head, how l ong woul d i t t ake i n order

f or t hat pur pl e cast or col or at i on t o occuri n Mr . Rei st er ' s f ace?

"A. Wel l , i n my opi ni on and exper i ence t hebl ood t hat i s bui l t up over a per i od of t i me,t hen l oss of oxygen, t o get ver y dar k i twoul d be a mat t er of a f ew mi nut es mi ni mum,somet hi ng i n t he or der of 2, 3, 4 mi nut es. "

Def endant at t acks t hi s t est i mony as l acki ng a

sci ent i f i c basi s. He does not di sput e t hat pet echi ae and pur pl e

col or i ng can r esul t f r om neck compr essi on, but he says - - and t he

Peopl e do not di sput e - - t hat no sci ent i f i c st udi es have been

publ i shed t o show how l engt hy a compr essi on i s r equi r ed to

pr oduce t hose r esul t s. Thus, def endant ar gues, Wi l son was

advanci ng a sci ent i f i c pr i nci pl e t hat had not gai ned gener al

accept ance i n i t s f i el d, i n vi ol at i on of t he r ul e of Fr ye v

Uni t ed St ates ( 293 F 1013 [ DC Ci r 1923] ) , whi ch i s f ol l owed by

t he cour t s of New Yor k ( Peopl e v Wesl ey, 83 NY2d 417 [ 1994] ) .

The f l aw i n def endant ' s r easoni ng i s t hat Wi l son di d

not cl ai m t o r el y on any est abl i shed sci ent i f i c pr i nci pl e. He

made cl ear t hat hi s t est i mony was based on hi s personal

"exper i ence" - - meani ng what he had obser ved, hear d and r ead

about par t i cul ar cases. Such evi dence i s not bar r ed by Frye

( see J ohnson v St at e, 933 So2d 568, 570 [ Fl a App 2006] [ "An

exper t opi ni on based on per sonal t r ai ni ng and exper i ence i s not

subj ect t o a Fr ye anal ysi s" ] ; Commonweal t h v Devl i n, 365 Mass

- 5 -


6/13

- 6 - No. 236

149, 155, 310 NE2d 353, 357 [ 1974] [ "Dr . Sosman' s medi cal opi ni on

. . . was not t he pr oduct of a ' sci ent i f i c t heor y' but was,

r at her , t he pr oduct of year s of exper i ence"] ) .

Def endant argues i n subst ance that an expert who i s a

sci ent i st can expr ess no opi ni on based on hi s own exper i ence, but

must r el y onl y on publ i shed st udi es or t ext s. We r ej ect t he

ar gument . I t i s t r ue t hat an opi ni on based on exper i ence al one

i s ordi nar i l y l ess r el i abl e t han one based on gener al l y accept ed

sci ence. An exper t may wel l over val ue hi s own exper i ence, or

even exagger at e or f abr i cat e i t . But t hese f l aws can be exposed

by cross- exami nat i on, and by t he opi ni ons of opposi ng exper t s - -

as t he al l eged f l aws i n Wi l son' s t est i mony wer e i n t hi s case.

Ther e wi l l or di nar i l y be no unf ai r ness as l ong as t he j ury i s not

mi sl ed i nt o t hi nki ng t hat t he exper t ' s opi ni on r ef l ect s a

gener al l y accept ed pr i nci pl e ( see Fl anagan v St ate, 625 So2d 827,

828 [ Fl a 1993] [ an exper t ' s r el i ance on "some sci ent i f i c

pr i nci pl e or t est . . . i mpl i es an i nf al l i bi l i t y not f ound i n

pur e opi ni on test i mony"] ) .

We acknowl edge t hat i t may not be possi bl e t o dr aw a

neat l i ne bet ween sci ent i f i c pr i nci pl es and exper i ence- based

t est i mony. I ndeed, i t has been obser ved t hat t he many cases

appl yi ng Frye t o evi dence based on sci ent i f i c pr i nci pl es shed

l i t t l e l i ght on exact l y what a "sci ent i f i c pr i nci pl e" i s ( see 22

Wr i ght & Gr aham, Feder al Pract i ce & Procedur e: Feder al Rul es of

Evi dence 5168. 2 [ dat abase updat ed Apr i l 2013] ) . We do not

- 6 -


7/13

- 7 - No. 236

i mpl y t hat an exper t i s al l owed t o say anythi ng he or she l i kes

t o a j ur y i f t he st at ement i s pref aced by t he wor ds " i n my

exper i ence. " To al l ow an exper t t o say, based onl y on hi s or her

al l eged exper i ence, t hat smoki ng does not cause l ung cancer or

t hat bal dness i s r el ated t o t he phases of t he moon woul d be t o

t ol er at e t he admi ssi on of j unk sci ence and to under mi ne t he basi c

pur pose of Fr ye.

But Wi l son' s t est i mony i n t hi s case does not t r i gger a

concer n of t hat ki nd. The part i es her e appear t o agr ee t hat

pet echi ae and di scol orat i on are caused by neck compr essi on; how

l ong t he neck must be compr essed i s a quest i on t hat sci ent i f i c

st udi es do not seem t o have answer ed. To al l ow a pathol ogi st who

has exami ned many dead bodi es, and heard and read many account s

of how vi ct i ms met t hei r deat hs, t o expr ess an opi ni on on t he

subj ect accor ds wi t h common sense, and does not open t he door t o

ever y exper t ' s f l i ght of f ancy.

B. Flynn

Fl ynn, a wai t r ess at t he bar wher e t he f at al event t ook

pl ace, saw par t of t he i nci dent and l at er t ol d an i nsur ance

company i nvest i gator t hat t he part she saw l ast ed "f or maybe 6 t o

10 seconds. " The Peopl e i nt er vi ewed her bef or e t r i al but deci ded

not t o cal l her as a wi t ness. The def ense di d cal l her , and

asked essent i al l y t he same quest i on t he i nsur ance i nvest i gat or

had asked: "Fr om t he t i me that you wal ked i n t o t he t i me you saw

t he guy l et go how l ong of a per i od of t i me was i t ?" On t he

- 7 -


8/13

- 8 - No. 236

wi t ness st and, Fl ynn gave a di f f er ent answer : " I di dn' t have a

wat ch. I wasn' t keepi ng t r ack of t i me. But i t coul d have been a

mi nut e or so. I don' t know. " Def ense counsel t r i ed t o show

Fl ynn her pr evi ous st at ement t o ref r esh her r ecol l ect i on, but was

not per mi t t ed t o do so. The t r i al cour t r ul ed t hat Fl ynn had

"gi ven no i ndi cat i on she needs her memory ref r eshed. "

I n t hi s, t he t r i al cour t er r ed. When a wi t ness,

descr i bi ng an i nci dent mor e t han a year i n t he past , says t hat i t

"coul d have" l ast ed "a mi nut e or so, " and adds " I don' t know, "

t he i nf er ence t hat her r ecol l ect i on coul d benef i t f r om bei ng

r ef r eshed i s a compel l i ng one. Mor e f undament al l y, i t was si mpl y

unf ai r t o l et t he j ur y hear t he "a mi nut e or so" t est i mony - -

t est i mony damagi ng t o t he def ense, f r om a def ense wi t ness' s own

l i ps - - whi l e al l owi ng t he def ense t o make no use at al l of an

ear l i er , much more f avorabl e, answer t o t he same quest i on. The

t r i al cour t suggest ed t o def ense counsel t hat t hi s was "an ef f or t

t o i mpeach your own wi t ness, " but counsel had not yet got t o t he

poi nt of i mpeachment ; she onl y want ed t o r ef r esh t he wi t ness' s

r ecol l ect i on. And i n any event , t echni cal l i mi t at i ons on t he

i mpeachment of wi t nesses must somet i mes gi ve way, i n a cr i mi nal

case, t o a def endant ' s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al ( Chamber s v

Mi ssi ssi ppi , 410 US 284 [ 1973] ) .

Though Fl ynn was cer t ai nl y not t he cent r al wi t ness i n

t he case, we concl ude t hat t he er r or i n l i mi t i ng counsel ' s

exami nat i on of her was i mpor t ant enough t o j ust i f y rever sal .

- 8 -


9/13

- 9 - No. 236

I ndeed, t he Peopl e do not ar gue t hat t he er r or was har ml ess. I t

may be t hat her or i gi nal "6 t o 10 seconds" st at ement , i f r epeat ed

on t he st and, woul d have been of l i t t l e consequence, f or Fl ynn

saw onl y t he l ast par t of what occur r ed. But t he t est i mony of a

def ense wi t ness t hat t hat f r agment of t he event mi ght have l ast ed

as l ong as a mi nut e gave si gni f i cant suppor t t o t he Peopl e. The

pr osecut or used - - i ndeed, over st at ed - - Fl ynn' s t est i mony i n her

cl osi ng argument : "Megan Fl ynn even t ol d you, t he def ense' s own

wi t ness, t ol d you i t was one to two mi nut es. "

C. Penrod

Def endant sought t o cal l Penr od, a psychol ogy

pr of essor , "as an exper t on t he i ssue of eyewi t ness

obser vat i ons, " expl ai ni ng i n a det ai l ed of f er of pr oof ,

accompani ed by an af f i davi t f r om Penr od, what he woul d t est i f y

t o. Much of hi s pr oposed t est i mony was on mat t ers wi t hi n t he ken

of t he aver age j ur or , and t he t r i al cour t was pl ai nl y r i ght t o

excl ude i t . But one poi nt t hat Penr od pr oposed t o make, r el at i ng

t o t he accur acy of est i mat es of dur at i on, cannot be put asi de so

r eadi l y. Penr od sai d i n hi s af f i davi t :

"I t i s gener al l y accept ed i n t he f i el d off or ensi c psychol ogy t hat eyewi t nessesr out i nel y over est i mat e t he dur at i on ofr el at i vel y shor t event s l ast i ng a f ew mi nut esor l ess. "

Penr od of f er ed speci f i c suppor t f or t hi s asser t i on,

quot i ng another psychol ogi st who had st udi ed t he t opi c:

"Theor et i cal and empi r i cal i nvest i gat i on ofdur at i on est i mat i ons dat e back to t he

- 9 -


10/13

- 10 - No. 236

ni net eent h cent ur y wi t h Vi er or dt ' s ( 1868)di scover y t hat shor t i nt er val s t end t o beoverest i mat ed and l onger onesunder - est i mat ed. Thi s f i ndi ng i s now

commonl y ref er r ed t o as ' Vi er or dt ' s Law. 'Consi st ent wi t h t hi s l aw, f or ensi cal l yr el ated r esear ch has shown t hat wi t nessest end to over est i mat e t he dur at i on ofr el at i vel y shor t event s l ast i ng a f ew mi nut esor l ess . . . . Yar mey and Yarmey ( 1997)f ound t hat wi t nesses i n f i el d si t uat i ons( i nvol vi ng) . . . a 15- second i nt er acti onwi t h a ' cul pr i t ' . . . over est i mat ed t hi sencount er by a 3 t o 1 r at i o . . . "

Ci t i ng Peopl e v LeGr and ( 8 NY3d 449 [2007] ) , def endant

ar gues t hat t he excl usi on of exper t t est i mony about "Vi er or dt ' s

Law" was er r or . LeGr and, as t he t r i al cour t obser ved, i s not

di r ect l y i n poi nt . The i ssue i n LeGr and was the r el i abi l i t y of

an eyewi t ness' s i dent i f i cat i on of def endant as t he per son who

commi t t ed t he cr i me, and we hel d i t an abuse of di scr et i on t o

excl ude exper t t est i mony about t he r el i abi l i t y of such

i dent i f i cat i ons wher e t he case "t ur ned sol el y on t he accur acy of

t he wi t ness' s i dent i f i cat i on, " f or whi ch t her e was " no

cor r obor at i ng evi dence" ( 8 NY3d at 457) . Her e, def endant ' s

i dent i t y was never i n i ssue.

LeGr and, however , can be read to st and f or t he br oader

pr i nci pl e t hat t her e ar e cases i n whi ch i t i s unf ai r t o depr i ve

t he j ur y of exper t t est i mony about t he r el i abi l i t y of eyewi t ness

observat i ons. Whet her t hi s i s such a case i s a debat abl e

quest i on. We must assume on t hi s record t hat " Vi er ordt ' s Law" i s

a gener al l y accept ed sci ent i f i c pr i nci pl e; def endant sought , and

was deni ed, a Frye hear i ng on t hat i ssue. The pr oposi t i on t hat

- 10 -


11/13

- 11 - No. 236

est i mat es of t he dur at i on of br i ef i nci dent s t end t o er r

si gni f i cant l y on t he hi gh si de i s not one wi t hi n t he ken of t he

aver age j ur or . And t he accur acy of wi t nesses' est i mat es of

dur at i on was undoubt edl y rel evant t o t hi s case.

On t he other hand, appl i cat i ons t o admi t evi dence of

t hi s ki nd - - i n essence, t est i mony by an exper t wi t ness advi si ng

t he j ur y on how t o eval uat e t he t est i mony of f act wi t nesses - -

must be appr oached wi t h caut i on. Such t est i mony i s col l at er al t o

t he mai n i ssues i n t he case, and we have warned t hat t he

expl or at i on of col l at er al i ssues t ends

" t o obscure t he mai n i ssue i n the mi nds oft he j ur y, t o l ead t hem away f r om t hepr i nci pal mat t er s whi ch r equi r e t hei rat t ent i on and t o pr ot r act t r i al s t o anunr easonabl e ext ent wi t hout any cor r espondi ngadvant age t o any one concerned"

( Peopl e v Har r i s, 209 NY 70, 82 [ 1913] ) . Thi s expl ai ns t he

l i mi t at i ons we pl aced on our hol di ng i n LeGr and, r equi r i ng t he

admi ssi on of t est i mony about eyewi t ness i dent i f i cat i ons onl y

wher e uncor r obor at ed i dent i f i cat i on evi dence i s of cr i t i cal

i mport ance. Cour t s do not normal l y excl ude r el evant evi dence

mer el y because t he case agai nst t he def endant i s st r ong. But t he

over al l st r engt h of t he case i s i mpor t ant t o i ssues ari si ng under

LeGr and, because wher e the eyewi t ness t est i mony i s not cr uci al ,

exper t t est i mony about t he col l at er al i ssue of eyewi t ness

r el i abi l i t y can be a har mf ul di st r acti on.

Her e, i t can be ar gued t hat i t was not cruci al f or t he

j ury t o deci de how many seconds or mi nut es def endant hel d Rei st er

- 11 -


12/13

- 12 - No. 236

i n a headl ock. The evi dence t hat Rei st er f el l unconsci ous, t hat

def endant st i l l mai nt ai ned a gr i p on hi s neck, and t hat onl ooker s

scr eamed f or def endant t o st op and t r i ed to pul l hi m away wi t hout

r esul t , woul d suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat , however l ong i t was, i t was

f ar t oo l ong. The deci si ve i ssue i n t he case i s not t he dur at i on

of t he headl ock, but whet her def endant caused Rei st er ' s death

whi l e i nt endi ng t o cause hi m ser i ous physi cal i nj ur y. The t heor y

t hat def endant ' s pur pose was onl y t o def end hi msel f mi ght be

r ej ect ed by a f act f i nder even i n t he absence of any evi dence of

dur at i on.

Yet t he Peopl e chose t o put i n much evi dence of

dur at i on, f r om f act and exper t wi t nesses, and r el i ed on i t

heavi l y. Thi s mi ght wel l have j ust i f i ed t he t r i al cour t i n

al l owi ng Penr od t o gi ve t he t est i mony def endant pr of er r ed.

Whet her i t was an abuse of di scr et i on t o excl ude t hat t est i mony

i s now - - si nce we r ever se the convi ct i on on ot her gr ounds - - an

academi c quest i on. A si mi l ar quest i on may ar i se on r et r i al , but

because no t wo t r i al s ar e ever i dent i cal t he consi der at i ons

gover ni ng t he cour t ' s exer ci se of i t s di scret i on wi l l not

necessar i l y be t he same. We deci de onl y t hat t he quest i on shoul d

be addr essed i n l i ght of t he f act or s di scussed i n t hi s opi ni on.

***

Accor di ngl y, t he or der of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on shoul d

be r ever sed and a new t r i al order ed.

- 12 -


13/13

- 13 - No. 236

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Or der r ever sed and a new t r i al order ed. Opi ni on by J udge Smi t h.Chi ef J udge Li ppman and J udges Gr af f eo, Read, Pi got t , Ri ver a and

Abdus- Sal aam concur .

Deci ded December 12, 2013

- 13 -

Oddone Decision, Court of Appeals

Documents

Transcript of Oddone Decision, Court of Appeals