People v. Berroa
99 N.Y.2d 134, 782 N.E.2d 1148, 753 N.Y.S.2d 12 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defense attorney provides ineffective assistance of counsel by creating an actual conflict of interest when they enter into a stipulation of fact that directly contradicts and impeaches the testimony of key defense witnesses, especially when the attorney is the sole source of that impeaching information.
Facts:
- On June 22, 1994, a person was shot and killed in Bronx County.
- Two eyewitnesses for the prosecution identified Dario Berroa as the shooter, describing him as having black hair and distinctive green eyes.
- Berroa's defense was based on misidentification, asserting that at the time of the shooting, his hair was a distinctive yellow-orange color.
- At trial, defense witnesses Iris Santiago and Anna Torres testified that Berroa's hair was yellow-orange.
- Santiago and Torres also provided surprise testimony that Berroa was with them in Philadelphia on June 22, 1994, the day of the murder.
- Both Santiago and Torres further testified that they had previously informed Berroa's defense counsel about his presence in Philadelphia on the day of the shooting.
- Berroa testified that he was in Philadelphia on the day of the shooting, stating he only recalled this after hearing the testimony of Santiago and Torres.
Procedural Posture:
- Dario Berroa was indicted in Bronx County for murder in the second degree and related offenses.
- Following a jury trial in the trial court, Berroa was found guilty of murder in the second degree.
- The trial court sentenced Berroa to 25 years to life in prison.
- Berroa (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
- One Justice on the Appellate Division panel dissented and granted Berroa (appellant) leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (New York's highest court).
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 defense attorney provide ineffective assistance of counsel by entering into a stipulation that directly contradicts the trial testimony of key defense witnesses, thereby pitting the attorney's credibility against that of the witnesses?
Opinions:
Majority - Wesley, J.
Yes. A defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel is violated when defense counsel stipulates to facts that directly contradict the testimony of defense witnesses, creating an actual conflict of interest. The right to effective counsel guarantees representation that is conflict-free and single-mindedly devoted to the client’s best interests. In this case, defense counsel's stipulation stated that the two key alibi witnesses had not previously told her that the defendant was in Philadelphia on the day of the murder. This action transformed the attorney from an advocate into an adverse witness whose credibility was pitted directly against her client's witnesses, thereby 'eviscerating the credibility of her client’s witnesses and his defense.' This was not a legitimate trial strategy, as counsel was the only source of the impeaching information, and the stipulation was an attempt to resolve a dilemma that ultimately destroyed the defense. This situation is distinct from cases where a stipulation is a tactical choice to soften damaging evidence or where other sources for the impeachment exist.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical boundary between an attorney's role as an advocate and their potential role as a witness. It establishes that an attorney cannot resolve an ethical dilemma, such as surprise testimony from their own witnesses, by stipulating to facts that make them an adverse witness against their client's case. This holding clarifies that such an action constitutes an actual conflict of interest and per se ineffective assistance, rather than a failed but permissible trial tactic. The case serves as a strong caution for defense attorneys who discover their witnesses are testifying contrary to prior statements, indicating that withdrawal from the case may be a more appropriate remedy than impeaching one's own witnesses.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Berroa