Warrant weasel
A borough resident tried to worm his way out from under a gun charge recently, claiming that the cops who apprehended him didn’t have a warrant for an arrest.
In legal papers mulled over by Judge Michael J. Gerstein last month, defendant Anthony Irons alleged that cops stopped him for an outstanding warrant back in November 2007.
He said that the officers saw Irons outside a city housing project, recognized him and decided to run his name with the NYPD database.
Realizing that there was a warrant for Irons’ arrest, the officers went to his home and knocked on the door.
Irons admitted that he did not respond to a crime in court and agreed to be handcuffed.
But, before leaving, he said that he wanted to get his keys and coat from his bedroom, court papers allege.
The cop who arrested him followed him into his room, where he found a black handgun sticking out from between the box spring and the mattress on his bed.
Police charged him with criminal possession of a weapon on top of the charge on the outstanding warrant.
Yet Irons wanted a judge to throw out all of the charges, claiming that he should never have been taken into custody because cops never came to his door with an arrest warrant in hand. The NYPD is also unable to provide a paper copy of the warrant during the trial’s discovery phase, they alleged.
City officials oppose his motion, claiming that they do not have to provide information that was never in their possession in the first place.
Attorneys for the city contend that an arrest warrant, when ordered by the judge, is generated electronically.
The police access the warrants from the computer, city attorneys said. In most cases, like the situation leading to Irons’ arrest, a paper warrant is never generated, officials said.
Judge Gerstein agreed, stating in his findings that “Given the fact that the documents provided to Defendant make it apparent that a valid warrant was extant on November 2, 2007, we do not find substantial prejudice to defendant arising from the People’s professed inability to now produce a paper copy of the warrant for discovery.”
Convicted killer makes
ineffective counsel claim
A suspected murderer found guilty of killing an area resident in 2005 tried to have his conviction tossed out recently, claiming that his own attorney’s ineptitude sealed his fate.
In court papers filed back in 2007, defendant Ronald Prescott filed to have the conviction vacated on the grounds that his “counsel provided ineffective assistance.”
Prescott was arrested in early 2005 in connection with a shooting that ended the life of Phillip Mason.
After a trial, Prescott was convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced to 25 years to life.
Yet in court papers, he believes the conviction should be overturned because his attorney did not do his due diligence.
Court papers claim that the attorney failed to object to hearsay, the prosecutors opening statement, as well as the court’s closing instructions – all of which damned Prescott’s chances of an acquittal.
His attorney also failed to request a lesser charge of manslaughter as well as failed to use an alibi witness – Prescott’s own aunt – in a way to help his case.
Prescott’s attorney during the trial alleged that everything he did was legal and above board.
While the alibi witness did not state on the stand what they had talked about in previous conversations, he can’t be held liable for that, he claimed.
In fact, he said he believed “it would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if he did not call an alibi witness his client wanted to testify.”
After hearing both sides, as well as reviewing the trial transcripts, Judge James Sullivan denied the request to have the conviction overturned, claiming in court papers dated July 18 that Prescott’s attorney did his job.
“The record shows that the defendant’s attorney delivered cogent and coherent opening and closing statements and effectively and extensively cross-examined the people’s witnesses,” Judge Sullivan wrote. “Counsel represented defendant’s interests and pursued a strategy of attacking the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, as well as trying to show that the sole eyewitness to the incident had a motive to fabricate his testimony.”
“Although the people may have discredited the alibi testimony, this did not seriously compromise the defendant’s right to a fair trial,” he wrote.
