Failure to turn over IAD reports was not a Brady violation

• People v Cuevas, 2026 NY Slip Op 02940 (1st Dept 5/12/26) – App. Div. agreed that defendant satisfied the first 2 prongs enunciated by People v Garrett, 23 NY3d 878 (2014): the substantiated AID reports were favorable to the defendant as impeachment material and had been “suppressed” by the People. But it found “no reasonable probability that the People’s failure to disclose the CCRB complaints, which arose from one incident that occurred 16 years earlier, undermined the fairness of defendant’s trial or impacted the verdict.”

Note: Cuevas was prosecuted and sentenced before the enactment of CPL Article 245.

Promise of relocation assistance was Brady material that should have been disclosed

• People v Archer, 2026 NY Slip Op 03975 (2d Dept 6/24/26) – Court refused to reinstate 2000 murder conviction vacated on CPL 440.10 motion. There was a reasonable probability that outcome of trial would have been different had People disclosed promise of relocation assistance to the only trial witness who identified the defendant as the shooter. Failure to turn over this evidence was aggravated by the prosecutor’s argument during summation that the witness was “the only independent witness” and had “absolutely zero motive to lie.”

Reversal: late disclosure of notes describing therapy sessions was prejudicial

• People v Ibrahim, 2026 NY Slip Op 03687 (2d Dept 6/10/26) – New trial ordered because of People’s belated disclosure of certain notes about therapy sessions between the complainant and social workers employed by the District Attorney’s Office. Defendant was substantially prejudiced by the late disclosure of these notes because he was not able to sufficiently review the material or to retain an expert to do so, and the trial court’s preclusion of the notes did not obviate the substantial prejudice.

Court precludes cross on unfounded officer complaints

• People v Cokely, 2026 NY Slip Op 03030 (3d Dept 5/14/26) – As part of discovery, the People had disclosed all citizen complaints contained within law enforcement personnel files. County Court was then within its discretion to grant the People’s subsequent pre-trial motion to preclude cross-examination on matters deemed exonerated, unfounded, unsustained, or closed, as defendant failed to articulate a good faith basis for inquiring about specific allegations of such misconduct.

No requirement to create forensic discovery

• People v Everett, 2026 NY Slip Op 03701 (3d Dept 6/11/26) – Court rejected argument that People were not ready for trial due to their failure to timely submit the cocaine for lab testing. The People are not required to generate and turn over discoverable material that does not yet exist, and are not obligated to disclose the results of scientific tests “unless and until” such tests have been completed. CPL 245.20 (1) (j).

Court’s discovery/Rosario sanction

• People v Monahan, 2026 NY Slip Op 03703 (3d Dept 6/11/26) – Trial court’s remedy of permitting defendant to recall a witness where the People had belatedly disclosed the witness’ recorded statements to police was an appropriate exercise of discretion. The recording was otherwise consistent with the witness’ written statement, produced during the same interview.

Good faith late disclosure does not bar retrial

• People v Jackson, 2026 NY Slip Op 03477 (3d Dept 6/4/26) – Double jeopardy did not bar retrial where the first mistrial was due to the People’s late disclosure of certain materials, and there was no indication the People’s disclosure lapses were motivated by the intent to provoke a mistrial.

Indictment should not have been dismissed for discovery violation

• People v Smith, 2026 NY Slip Op 04094 (4th Dept 6/26/2026) – People provided the defense with screen shots of text messages between the complainant and defendant. But on the eve of trial, the complainant revealed that she had deleted some of the text messages she and defendant had exchanged; the prosecution promptly notified defense counsel of that revelation. County Court erred by determining that the People did not exercise due diligence or make reasonable efforts to discover the deleted messages. Those text messages were not in the People’s actual or constructive possession, and the prosecution was not required to make a diligent, good faith effort to ascertain their existence.

Missing BWC footage not fatal to People’s readiness and sanction was appropriate

• People v Crews, 2026 NY Slip Op 04079 (4th Dept 6/26/2026) – Bay factors and holistic assessment applied. Court did not err in determining that the People met their burden of establishing due diligence in obtaining the BWC footage. Prosecutor made multiple requests to the police for all BWC footage associated with the case and the police initially provided nearly all of that footage to the People and “[i]t would not have been particularly obvious to the People that [any additional footage] was missing”. Trial court imposed appropriate sanction by precluding the People from relying on that footage during their case-in-chief.

Alleged lapses in ongoing discovery may trigger sanctions but do not invalidate original COC

• People v Oliver, 2026 NY Slip Op 01642 (4th Dept 3/20/26) – Records in question either did not exist at the time the COC was filed or were not “related to the prosecution of a charge”, and were not part of the “discovery required” to be automatically disclosed by the People prior to the filing of a proper COC. “[T]he People’s failure to provide the records at the time they served and filed their original . . . [COC did] not render [the COC] improper”. People established that they had ” ‘exercis[ed] due diligence and ma[de] reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery’ ” at that time.

CPW count of indictment was jurisdictionally defective; amendment improper

• People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 02214 (1st Dept 4/14/26) – Charge of CPW 3 [Penal Law § 265.02 (1)], could be satisfied by proof that defendant committed the ‘bump-up’ crime of fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon (Penal Law § 265.01) in one of four ways, but this count of the indictment failed to allege which specific provision defendant had violated. Consequently, the trial court erred in permitting the People to amend the indictment, for the amendment cured ‘a failure…to charge or state an offense’ or ‘the legal insufficiency of the factual allegations,” both of which are prohibited by CPL 200.70 (2).”

People’s refusal to charge justification in the grand jury was proper

• People v Anderson, 2026 NY Slip Op 04056 (4th Dept 6/26/2026) – Evidence before the grand jury was not sufficient to support a justification charge and the prosecution’s omission of that charge did not effect the integrity of the grand jury or create a risk of a baseless indictment. The trial court erred in dismissing the indictment on that ground.

US Supreme Court – Case Remanded Because of Procedural Error in Determining Batson Claim

• Pitchford v Cain, ___ U.S. ___ (May 28, 2026)–Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied Batson and erred in finding that the defendant waived his claim of racial discrimination in jury selection. The trial court failed to complete the required third step of the Batson analysis by not allowing defense counsel to argue that the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons were pretextual, and the record showed that the defense attempted to preserve the issue but was cut off. As a result, the Court ruled that the state court’s decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under AEDPA and reversed and remanded.

Defendant did not make prima facie showing required by Batson

• People v Doole, 2026 NY Slip Op 03452 (2d Dept 6/3/26) – Defendant’s “reliance on the prosecutor’s removal of male prospective jurors, without more, was insufficient to make a prima facie showing of discrimination,” and he did not make a sufficient showing to raise an inference of purposeful discrimination. “Since the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the prosecutor was not required to provide a gender-neutral explanation for the challenges to certain male prospective jurors.”

New trial necessary where jurors were kept anonymous

• People v Cassell, 2026 NY Slip Op 02173 (3d Dept 4/9/26) – Conviction reversed where prospective jurors were identified only by numbers; the record was devoid of proof their names were ever provided to defendant, and the trial court put forth no case-specific reason for departing from mandatory CPL 270.15 procedure (such as concern regarding juror safety, intimidation or interference, or any other circumstance warranting an anonymous jury).

• Also People v Zakrzewski, 2026 NY Slip Op 03029 (3d Dept 5/14/26) – Where there was no factual predicate or rationale for the trial court to empanel the jury anonymously, conviction reversed and new trial ordered.

Trial court did not adhere to 3-step Batson protocol

• People v Duplessis, 2026 NY Slip Op 02170 (3d Dept 4/9/26) – Despite no preservation, case remitted to trial court in interest of justice “given the magnitude of the error.” While the prosecutor offered a race-neutral reason for each juror at step two, County Court improperly “merged the step two and three requirements by immediately denying the objection without first allowing defense counsel to make an argument that the reasons were pretextual.”

People gave race-neutral reason for juror challenge

• People v Goodman, 2026 NY Slip Op 03479 (3d Dept 6/4/26) – In response to defendant’s Batson challenge, People gave a valid and non-discriminatory reason, stating they utilized a peremptory challenge because the prospective juror’s son was incarcerated at the time. Defendant did not therefore meet his ultimate burden to show purposeful discrimination.

Peremptory strike of juror was proper under Batson analysis

• People v Sanchez, 2026 NY Slip Op 02541 (4th Dept 4/24/2026) – Prosecutor provided several reasons for using a peremptory challenge to strike the sole Latino prospective juror. e.g., he had no hobbies, he “[did] not like to do anything,” and he had “no stake in the community.” These were sufficient race-neutral reasons to overcome the inference of discrimination. Trial court’s subsequent determination that the prosecutor’s explanation was not pretextual was not an abuse of its discretion.

• People v Ellis, 2026 NY Slip Op 04151 (6/30/26) – PowerPoint properly part of the People’s case where witness made clear that he had not conducted any investigation himself and that each slide showed evidence already admitted. “While the PowerPoint used a consistent color to show defendant’s tracked path and cell site locations, additions made by the technician, such as inserting words, circles and arrows” were not impermissible.

• People v Griffin, 2026 NY Slip Op 04044 (1st Dept 6/25/26) — People did not impermissibly impeach their own witness in violation of CPL 60.35 when the prosecutor elicited testimony from complainant that she lied when she first reported her assault to the police. “This was not to discredit the witness but ‘to mitigate the more damaging effect it would have had if elicited on cross-examination by defense counsel, and to give the witness an opportunity to explain why she had previously lied’…”

• Also permissible for physician to testify as to statements complainant made during medical examination even though she was not then “in acute distress.” Her description of the assault was relevant to medical treatment, and although forensics may have been an additional motive for the MD’s inquiry, “that does not change the analysis because the first duty of a doctor is for medical assistance.”

• People v Greene, 2026 NY Slip Op 03397 (1st Dept 6/2/26) – Trial court “did not abuse its discretion in admitting arrest photos and body-worn camera footage of the arrest notwithstanding that there was no dispute regarding defendant’s identity [citation omitted]. In any event, any error in this regard was harmless.”

• People v Johnson, 2026 NY Slip Op 02798 (1st Dept 5/5/26) – Evidence of preceding verbal dispute between defendant and his girlfriend was properly part of the People’s direct case. It provided context for the defendant’s subsequent actions and his confrontation with the victim, a longtime, male friend of the girlfriend. Furthermore, the potential for prejudice was minimal since the dispute was not physical and did not include any threats, nor did the jury learn of any protective order issued for the girlfriend’s benefit.

• People v Cherry, 2026 NY Slip Op 02070 (1st Dept 4/7/26) – 911 call and body-worn camera footage that captured the statement of a non-testifying officer were properly received into evidence on the People’s direct case as within the present sense exception to the hearsay rule. Nor did their admission constitute a Crawford violation of the Confrontation as they were not “procured with a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.”

• People v. Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 01996 (2d Dept 4/1/26) – People’s failure to call the complainant and investigating detective as witnesses at trial “did not inherently deprive the defendant of a fair trial, as ‘[i]t is not incumbent upon the prosecution to call at trial every witness to a crime or to make a complete and detailed accounting to the defense of all law enforcement investigatory work’….”

Direct examination question not prosecutorial misconduct

• People v Diaz, 2026 NY Slip Op 02300 (3d Dept 4/17/26) – During DWI trial, prosecutor’s question to child whether child know “what was wrong” with defendant, to which the child responded that defendant was “high,” was not prosecutorial misconduct. The People explained they had been attempting to elicit testimony as to defendant’s alleged absence of a medical issue, and the trial court promptly sustained defendant’s objection and instructed the jury to disregard the testimony. Appellate Division noted such questioning did not appear to be “part of a flagrant and pervasive pattern causing substantial prejudice to defendant.”

Proof of consensual sexual relationship proper

• People v Oquendo, 2026 NY Slip Op 02002 (3d Dept 4/2/26) – DNA evidence from victim’s vulvar swabs did not constitute Molineux evidence where the People did not use the results to imply that defendant had committed a prior bad act or uncharged sex crime, but rather used the evidence to establish defendant’s access to the victim before her death.

People’s motion to preclude psychiatric testimony hsould not have been granted

• People v Williams”, 2026 NY Slip Op 04095 (4th Dept 6/26/2026) – Trial ourt abused its discretion by granting the People’s motion to preclude defendant from calling his proposed psychiatric witness at trial. Defendant had provided the People with timely and sufficient notice pursuant to CPL 250.10. The expert’s testimony about an examination that occurred approximately 1½ years before the crime was relevant and necessary to defendant’s affirmative defense of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

Police interview during which a polygraph was administered properly admitted

• People v Post, 2026 NY Slip Op 03580 (4th Dept 6/5/2026) – Trial court did not err in permitting People to put forward a recording of an interview of defendant that included a lengthy polygraph examination, to which he voluntarily submitted and during which he made inculpatory statements. The court did not allow the People to introduce evidence of the polygraph’s results, and it gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jurors. Moreover, any error in this regard would be harmless in this case.

Photos properly admitted on People’s case

• People v. Baxter, NY Slip Op. 02516 (4th Dept 4/24/2026) – Court did not err in admitting photographs of the homicide victim as that evidence was not admitted for the sole purpose of arousing emotions in the jury. Booking photo, which depicted defendant sticking out his tongue, was received to show defendant’s appearance at the time of his arrest; that was relevant to the jury’s determination of whether he was the person depicted in a surveillance video of the alleged shooter.

Asking for police witness’s opinion of defendant’s veracity was improper, but not reversible error

• People v Thanthima, 2026 NY Slip Op 02503 (4th Dept 4/24/2026) – Prosecutor should not have asked an investigator whether he believed that defendant was being truthful during his interview with the investigator but it did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The investigator’s testimony was cumulative to the recording of the interview session, played for the jury, where “the investigators repeatedly expressed their disbelief in defendant’s statements.”

• People v Johnson, 2026 NY Slip Op 02798 (1st Dept 5/5/26) – Prosecutor at assault trial was properly permitted to

1. ask defendant’s girlfriend about his history of anger and jealousy as “that was relevant to defendant’s potential general motive” and intent to seriously injury the victim, a longtime male friend of the girlfriend, and
2. impeach her, after she categorically denied any displays of jealousy-anger, with her prior inconsistent sworn statements memorialized in NYPD Domestic Incident Reports.

1st Dept noted that trial court charged the jury in accordance with CPL 60.35 (2) re limited use of prior inconsistent statements.

People exceeded bounds of cross-examination

• People v Zakrzewski, 2026 NY Slip Op 03029 (3d Dept 5/14/26) – People improperly questioned defendant about the underlying facts leading to the issuance of the order of protection that he was alleged to have violated. The basis for the underlying OOP – “a significant instance of domestic violence not unlike that for which he was charged in the present indictment – was extremely prejudicial and served no purpose regarding defendant’s credibility.” Nor did defendant’s reference to a “dispute” open the door for the People to elicit the highly prejudicial testimony regarding what that dispute entailed.

Failure to abide by Sandoval ruling not cause for reversal

• People v Grefer, 2026 NY Slip Op 03577 (4th Dept 6/5/2026) – County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor violated the court’s Sandoval ruling by asking defendant on cross-examination about the underlying facts of a prior conviction. Decision lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and here, defendant opened the door to the prosecutor’s questioning and, thus, a mistrial was not warranted. Failure of the People to seek a revised Sandoval ruling did not warrant the drastic remedy of a mistrial where there was no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.

Court must grant mid-trial adjournment following an unnoticed alibi rebuttal witness

• People v Shaver, 2026 NY Slip Op 02895 (3d Dept 5/7/26) -Per his timely alibi notice, defendant called his ex-girlfriend to testify that he was with her at a bar the night of the sexual assault, and offered a time-stamped photograph of the ex-girlfriend and her friend to establish the date and time. While the trial court had discretion to permit the People to call the unnoticed friend as a rebuttal witness, it was required to grant defendant’s request under CPL 250.20 (3) and (4) for a 3-day adjournment before the rebuttal witness testified. Its failure to do so in this case required reversal and a new trial.

• People v Pantojas, 2026 NY Slip Op 04152 (1st Dept 6/30/26) – Prosecutor repeatedly violated court’s directive that, in summation, he should not refer to fact that defendant’s sister was not called as a witness. Court, however, declined to order a new trial in light of court’s curative instructions and n light of court’s curative instructions and overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

• People v Steward, 2026 NY Slip Op 03637 (1st Dept 6/9/26) – “The prosecutor’s statements during summation regarding the lack of witness cooperation constituted fair comment on the evidence and were responsive to defense counsel’s arguments.”

• People v Scott, 2026 NY Slip Op 03844 (3d Dept 6/18/26) – In trial for defendant demanding money from store owners for “protection,” prosecutor’s comment during summation that the victim told defendant he “wasn’t going to pay [defendant] like maybe the previous owner did” violated court’s Molineux ruling. However, reversal not required as evidence was overwhelming, and court’s curative instruction ameliorated any resulting prejudice from the singular remark.

Former ADA as judicial law clerk on defendant’s CPL 440 motion

• People v Dickinson, 2026 NY Slip Op 02694 (3d Dept 4/30/26) – Law clerk for judge considering defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion was a former ADA in the same office that had prosecuted defendant. While the DA’s Office informed the Third Department that the former ADA was not substantively involved in defendant’s case, they acknowledged it was possible the ADA may have appeared while the matter was pending as a felony in local court. The Third Department had no information re the law clerk’s involvement with the motion. Because even a single court appearance may require disqualification and a law clerk’s insulation from a motion, the Third Department reversed the order denying the 440 motion and remitted the matter to a different County Court judge for determination of the motion.

3½-year delay before commencement of prosecution did not require dismissal under Taranovich

• People v Ford, 2026 NY Slip Op 02793 (1st Dept 5/5/26) – Although the delay was “substantial,” the People demonstrated that they “initially lacked sufficient evidence to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” and that “the determination to delay prosecution was made in good faith and not based on any negligent failures to investigate or attempts to gain a tactical advantage.” Additionally, defendant’s claim of prejudice was speculative, and the delay was not “so egregious as to warrant dismissal regardless of prejudice….”

Misleading search warrant application

• People v Zakrzewski, 2026 NY Slip Op 03029 (3d Dept 5/14/26) – Disqualification of DA’s Office not required after Office provided misleading information to the Town Justice who issued the search warrant. The apparent misstatement did not appear to be an attempt to hide the prior warrant application in order to seek a better ruling from a different judge, and defendant was not prejudiced.

Release of defendant’s property while appeal pending

• Merritt v Elmira Police Dept. Prop. Clerk, 2026 NY Slip Op 03480 (3d Dept 6/4/26) – Where defendant sought return of the $7,000 recovered during the execution of the search warrant, and the DA simultaneously sought civil forfeiture of the same funds as proceeds from defendant’s underlying drug sales, court ruled both actions premature where appeal was still pending.

Appellant’s counsel sanctioned; respondent lawyers admonished

• Landberg v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03935 (2d Dept 6/23/2026) – Imposed sanctions upon an attorney ($8,000) and a law firm ($2,500) for submitting a brief, prepared with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), containing citations to nonexistent cases, fictitious purported Court of Appeals quotations wholly contrary to actual law, and misrepresentations. The attorneys for the other side were admonished for not calling the court’s attention to those errors. Court noted its decision limited to sanctions – whether disciplinary action is also warranted may be a matter for the Attorney Grievance Committee.

Video segment, for educational purposes, of oral argument held 5/20/2026 where the attorneys were “called out”:

That same day, the App. Div. Court issued this Order to Show Cause on why sanctions should not be imposed.

• Matter of Julien v Arthur, 2026 NY Slip Op 03308 (2d Dept 5/27/2026) – Pro se litigant’s reliance on AI to submit a brief with fabricated citations was frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Court imposed a monetary sanction of $250.

Use of AI hallucinations & refusal to participate in Grievance investigation

• Matter of Lewis, 2026 NY Slip Op 03074 (1st Dept 5/14/26) – Failure to check citations and cooperate with disciplinary proceeding results in suspension.

AI is optional

• “Generative tools may assist, but they can never replace the moral nerve that transforms thought into advocacy. Before this Court, artificial intelligence is optional. Actual intelligence is mandatory.” Hopson v Capital One Auto Fin., A26A0367 (Ga App 5/20/2026) citing Mattox v Prod. Innovations Research, LLC, 807 FSupp 3d 1341 (ED Okla 2025)

Consequences of Georgia ADA’s reliance on AI in murder case

• Payne v State, No. S26A0459, — SE2d — (Ga 5/20/2026) – On the defendant’s appeal from order denying her motion for a new trial, Georgia’s Supreme Court discovered that the ADA’s submissions to the trial court included non-existent cases and quotations and cases that do not stand for the proposition asserted — errors that were repeated in large measure in the trial court’s order, which was primarily drawn from the ADA’s proposed order. After receiving the ADA’s post-argument acknowledgment of errors resulting from her use of AI without verification, the Supreme Court

• suspended the ADA from practicing in the Supreme Court (but not Georgia’s lower courts, leaving further disciplinary action to the State Bar of Georgia) for 6 months and conditioned her reinstatement on the completion of 12 CLE hours on ethics, brief writing, and AI
• formally admonished the ADA and the District Attorney’s Office, and
• vacated the order denying a new trial and sent the case back to the trial court for a new order.

Video of March 16, 2026 oral argument; the Chief Justice’s queries at the close of the ADA’s argument begin at 32:46 of the video. Although the ADA has been an attorney for more than 20 years, she was in private practice before joining the DA’s Office in early 2025.

Reprehensible

• State of Oklahoma ex rel. OBA v Reeves, 2026 OK 37, — P3d — (Okla 5/27/2026) – Public censure. From the concurrence: “The unverified use of generative artificial intelligence resulting in reliance upon false authority is reprehensible and clearly violates numerous ethical rules.”

Former DA remains suspended

• Matter of Rain, 2026 NY Slip Op 02719 (3d Dept 4/30/26) – Third Dept denied former DA’s motion to lift her two-year suspension, originally imposed in 2018 following findings of various misconduct. DA’s motion failed to demonstrate that she possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and that her reinstatement would benefit the public interest.

Defendant’s appellate attorney censured

• Matter of Wittman, 2026 NY Slip Op 02195 (3d Dept 4/9/26) – Attorney censured after admitting to several rule violations, primarily involving neglect of client’s appeal. While counsel took responsibility for her conduct, the court did note her prior disciplinary history for similar misconduct.

• Commission on Prosecutor Conduct 2026 Annual Report 2/27/2026

Pennsylvania New Standard For Post-Conviction Review

PA Supreme Court ruled that the Philadelphia DA’s Office misled courts to vacate old murder convictions. In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Lavar Brown, — A3d — (Pa 6/16/26), the court found DA Larry Krasner’s office failed to conduct independent record reviews and withheld vital context—including victims’ family protests—from judges during Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) proceedings. Strict new mandates articulated, including:

• Mandatory AG Notification: Post-conviction courts must now notify the Attorney General’s Office when Philadelphia prosecutors do not oppose a defense counsel’s petition

• State Participation: The Attorney General’s Office is granted the right to formally become a party to these proceedings, acting as a safeguard for victims and adversarial balance.

• Independent Review: Judges are directed to conduct their own independent reviews of trial records rather than simply rubber-stamping agreed-upon motions from the DA’s office.

• Victim Rights: The ruling emphasizes the protection of victims’ rights, providing family members of the murdered victims the opportunity to be fully heard in the process.

Also see Former Krasner Supervisor Suspended for Misleading Judge

Ex-parte communications with prosecutor mandates reversal Commonwealth v Brooks, 1546 MDA 2024 [will not be officially published] (Pa Super Ct 5/27/26) – Pennsylvania Superior Court granted a new trial to a defendant after finding that undisclosed text message communications between former District Attorney and the trial judge and prosecutor during attempted homicide trial; text messages included complaints from DA about the judge’s handling of objections and other trial matters.