People v. Porter

Summary

The Supreme Court, Queens County, considers defendant Allen Porter's motion to vacate his convictions for two counts of second-degree murder and one count of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The court conducted a CPL article 440 hearing concerning alleged Brady and Giglio violations, including undisclosed information about a potential accomplice and exculpatory witness information. The opinion recounts the prosecution's trial theories and the alleged suppression of material bearing on witness credibility and defendant's culpability.

Holdings

1. Evidence that the prosecution had determined there was probable cause to arrest Thomas as an accomplice, authorized efforts to arrest and extradite her, prepared a sworn felony complaint charging her with murder, and possessed related investigative records was favorable impeachment evidence that the prosecution was required to disclose.
2. The prosecutor's handwritten notes reporting that a possible eyewitness named Willis said Porter did not commit the murders constituted exculpatory Brady material that should have been disclosed and investigated before trial.
3. Because defendant specifically requested exculpatory and impeachment information, the suppressed evidence satisfied the reasonable-possibility materiality standard; independently, it also satisfied the higher reasonable-probability standard. The aggregate suppression violated due process and warranted vacating the conviction and sentence and ordering a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecution violated Brady and Giglio by suppressing evidence that Vanessa Thomas had been treated as a potential accomplice or suspect and might have received a benefit or leverage in exchange for her testimony.
2. Whether the prosecution violated Brady by suppressing handwritten notes containing exculpatory information that a possible eyewitness, Willis Campbell, said Porter was not present and did not commit the murders.
3. Whether the suppressed evidence was material under the reasonable-possibility standard applicable to defendant's specific discovery requests.
4. Whether the aggregate suppression of the evidence violated Porter's constitutional right to due process and warranted vacatur of the conviction and a new trial.

Disposition

other