APPEALS This was another banner year for the Hiscock Legal Aid Appeals program, with a wide range of successes that benefited both individual clients and our overall clientele. We successfully argued to the NYS Court of Appeals that a client’s conviction for resisting arrest should be reversed because police had no valid reason to arrest him. The client was visiting his child at an apartment complex in Syracuse. Police knew the client had permission to be there, but nevertheless arrested him for “trespassing” at the complex. They also charged him with resisting arrest. The Court of Appeals found that the client was not a trespasser and the police could not lawfully arrest him. Since the arrest was illegal, the client could not be found guilty of resisting arrest. We also successfully argued to the Appellate Division that a client’s conviction should be reserved because the lower court improperly coerced him into pleading guilty. The trial court told our client that if he did not plead guilty, and instead went to trial and lost, the court would impose the highest possible sentence. The appellate court determined that the trial court’s threat of a heavier sentence undermined our client’s ability to make a voluntary choice about whether to plead guilty or take his case to trial. PAROLE In addition to acquiring countless favorable plea dispositions for hundreds of clients and a record number of dismissals via Habeas Corpus petitions alleging the clients’ Due Process rights were violated, the Parole Revocation Defense Unit acquired considerable individual noteworthy dispositions over the course of 2014. Client was violated on allegations they used a controlled substance. Client adamantly claims he did not use the illegal substance. At a Contested Final Hearing (i.e. trial), the PRDU presented evidence demonstrating that a prescription medication Client X was taking could trigger a “false positive” on a drug test. In light of this evidence, Client X was restored to parole supervision. Another client’s charges were dismissed at a Preliminary Hearing. The client was charged with allegedly stalking and assaulting his ex-girlfriend. During cross-examination, the complainant, who was herself charged with felony Arson for attempting to light the client’s home on fire only days prior to the alleged incident admitted that she made up the charges as part of the scheme to force the client to drop the felony charges against her in exchange of dropping the charges against him. 13
14 Online Touch Home