People v. Adams
987 N.E.2d 272, 964 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In rare circumstances, a prosecutor's office must be disqualified based on a significant appearance of impropriety alone, even without a showing of actual prejudice, particularly when there is an objective basis to question whether prosecutorial discretion is being influenced by the powerful status of the complainant.
Facts:
- The complainant, a sitting Rochester City Court Judge, and the defendant, her neighbor, were formerly in an intimate relationship.
- On September 20, 2009, the defendant sent the complainant three vulgar and personal text messages that were unrelated to her judicial duties.
- During plea negotiations, a prosecutor from the Monroe County District Attorney's office told defense counsel that a proposed resolution was being rejected 'due to the position of the victim.'
- The complainant personally told defense counsel that she was 'not willing to reduce the charges' and 'wanted to go to trial.'
- The District Attorney's office did not extend any plea offers to the defendant, a course of action that an experienced defense attorney described as unprecedented for a similarly situated defendant in that county.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged in Rochester City Court with aggravated harassment in the second degree.
- All Rochester City Court Judges recused themselves from the case.
- Defendant filed a motion in City Court to disqualify the Monroe County District Attorney's office and appoint a special prosecutor.
- The City Court denied the motion to disqualify the District Attorney.
- Defendant renewed the disqualification motion in County Court, which also denied the motion.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in City Court, where defendant was convicted on one count.
- Defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to County Court, which affirmed the conviction.
- A Judge of the Court of Appeals granted defendant leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a significant appearance of impropriety requiring the disqualification of the District Attorney's office arise when it deviates from its standard practice by refusing to offer any plea in a routine harassment case where the complainant is a sitting judge?
Opinions:
Majority - Pigott, J.
Yes, a significant appearance of impropriety requiring disqualification arises under these circumstances. While the general rule for disqualifying a prosecutor requires a showing of actual prejudice or a substantial risk of abuse of confidence, rare situations permit disqualification based on the appearance of impropriety alone to protect public confidence in the legal system. Here, the complainant was a judge who regularly presided over cases brought by the District Attorney's office, yet the criminal charges were personal and unrelated to her official position. The District Attorney’s hard-line refusal to offer any plea deal, which experienced counsel deemed unprecedented for such a routine harassment case, combined with the prosecutor's statement attributing the refusal to the victim's wishes and the office's failure to rebut allegations of disparate treatment, created an unacceptably great appearance that the office was not exercising its discretion impartially. This objective basis to question the prosecutor's evenhandedness necessitated disqualification to protect the public's confidence in the government and its legal system.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the general rule requiring actual prejudice for prosecutorial disqualification. It establishes that in circumstances involving powerful or connected victims, a prosecutor's failure to maintain the appearance of impartiality can itself be grounds for removal. The ruling puts prosecutors on notice that they must not only act impartially but also actively avoid conduct that could be perceived as giving preferential treatment or ceding their discretion to a powerful victim. This precedent empowers defendants to challenge prosecutorial conduct that deviates from the norm in cases involving influential figures, shifting the focus from proving actual bias to demonstrating a compelling appearance of impropriety that undermines public trust.
