Chelsy Jones, a May 2013 graduate of Albany Law School, is a Law Clerk for the West Firm, PLLC in Albany. Chelsy is a magna cum laude graduate of Siena College with a degree in Political Science. While in law school, she was a Senior Editor at the Center, a legal intern for the Domestic Violence Hybrid Prosecution Clinic, and a Research Assistant for the Albany Law School Clinic and Justice Center. Chelsy also worked year round as a legal intern at the Schenectady County District Attorney's Office, and acted as the student ambassador for the Center for Excellence in Law Teaching and a member of the Teaching Enhancement Committee.
She wrote this essay for the State Constitutional Adjudication Seminar, Spring 2013.
In the realm of criminal
constitutional issues, a brief review of recent Court of Appeals opinions
authored by Judge Victoria Graffeo reveals an interesting pattern of decisions
against the rights of the accused and a strong reliance on state precedent
rather than federal.
In People v. Grice,[1] Graffeo
authored an opinion dealing with the constitutional right to counsel and when
said right attaches. In Grice, the defendant argued that his
indelible right to counsel attached at the moment his father told the police that
he had an attorney.[2] Judge Graffeo, however, disagreed, and held that
actual appearance or communication by the attorney is required for attachment.[3] She based her decision entirely on the New
York Constitution and cited only New York cases in support of her position,
relying heavily on precedent.[4] Graffeo specifically addressed the evolution
of New York’s right to counsel jurisprudence and the importance of pragmatic
and simple tests to avoid irregularity and uncertainty.
Two years earlier, Judge Graffeo authored a precedent-setting
decision dealing with search and seizure rights in New York in People v. McIntosh.[5]
At issue in McIntosh was the admissibility of evidence that was seized on a bus
when police officers boarded and searched the bus merely because it came from
New York City.[6] Graffeo applied the four levels of scrutiny
test, developed in the New York case of People v. DeBour[7] to evaluate police
encounters, and ultimately held that the police did not have a legitimate
reason for confronting the individuals on the bus.[8] Again Graffeo relied solely on New York cases
for precedent. In fact, the U.S. Supreme
Court treated the exact same issue very differently in Florida v. Bostick[9] when
it approved bus sweeps without any legal justification whatsoever.
In People v. Henriquez,[10]
Graffeo authored an opinion involving the right to counsel, where the defendant
refused to allow his assigned legal counsel to represent him and also declined
to represent himself.[11] Graffeo and the Court held that the
defendant’s right to a fair trial was not violated under these circumstances,
and the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.[12] Unlike the cases previously discussed, in this
case Graffeo not only cited to New York cases, but also to the U.S.
Constitution and several U.S. Supreme Court cases in support of her position.
New York State constitutional
protections against search and seizure, specifically suppression of a lineup
identification, were at issue in People
v. Jones.[13] Graffeo authored the majority opinion holding
that the exclusionary rule did “not require suppression of the identification
evidence.”[14] Based on the federal precedent laid out in Payton v. New York,[15] the
defendant in Jones was unlawfully arrested
because the officers had no warrant and no consent to enter the apartment to
carry out the arrest.[16] However, despite this violation, the Court
held that the New York State Constitution did not require suppression of the
evidence.[17] Again, Graffeo relied primarily on New York
cases for support of her position and only on the New York Constitution for
authority.
The most recent opinion authored by
Judge Graffeo on a criminal constitutional issue is People v. Pealer.[18] At issue in Pealer was whether records of breathalyzer machine calibration and
maintenance could be offered at trial or if such documents were subject to the
Confrontation Clause requirements laid out in Crawford v. Washington.[19] Ultimately, the records were held
non-testimonial in nature and thus were not subject to the Confrontation
Clause. Graffeo again focused on New
York’s jurisprudential approach to Confrontation Clause issues and relied on
New York case law to argue her approach.
Specifically, the factors announced in the New York case of People v. Brown[20]
were applied to the facts in this case to determine the primary purpose of the
documents. After an extensive analysis
under New York precedent, Graffeo does make mention of the U.S. Supreme Court’s
stance on the issue and argues this decision is in line with federal precedent.[21]
It is fairly obvious after reading
these cases that Judge Graffeo prefers to rely on state, rather than federal,
precedent and authority. In fact, Graffeo
only uses federal precedent in her arguments when the U.S. Supreme Court’s
views on the issue are aligned with hers.
In many cases, Graffeo’s opinion has decided against the rights of the
accused, signaling her penchant for crime control over due process.
[1] People v.
Grice, 100 N.Y.2d 318, 763 N.Y.S.2d 227 (2003).
[2] Id. at 319, 763 N.Y.S.2d at 228.
[3] Id. at 324, 763 N.Y.S.2d at 232.
[4] See generally Grice, 100 N.Y.2d 318, 763
N.Y.S.2d 227.
[5] People v.
McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521, 730 N.Y.S.2d 265 (2001).
[6] Id. at 524, 730 N.Y.S.2d at 266.
[7] People v.
DeBour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375 (1976).
[8] McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d at 527, 730 N.Y.S.2d
at 269.
[9] Florida v.
Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S. Ct. 2382 (1991).
[10] People v.
Henriquez, 3 N.Y.3d 210, 785 N.Y.S.2d 384 (2004).
[11] Id. at 211, 785 N.Y.S.2d at 385.
[12] Id. at 217, 785 N.Y.S.2d at 388.
[13] People v. Jones,
2 N.Y.3d 235, 788 N.Y.S.2d 133 (2004).
[14] Id. at 237, 788 N.Y.S.2d at 134.
[15] Payton v. New
York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S. Ct. 1371 (1980).
[16] Jones, 2 N.Y.3d at 237, 788 N.Y.S.2d at
134.
[17] Id. at 244-45. 788 N.Y.S.2d at 140.
[18] People v.
Pealer, 89 A.D.3d 1504, 933 N.Y.S.2d 473 (4th Dep’t 2011).
[19] Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-54 (2004).
[20] People v. Brown,
13 N.Y.3d 332, 890 N.Y.S.2d 415 (2009).
[21] Pealer, 89 A.D.3d at 1505, 933 N.Y.S.2d
at 474.
