Happenstance

Those individuals responsible for the malicious prosecution and my unlawful imprisonment would have got away with it, except for happenstance.

The Fourth Appellate Dept; law clerk who bragged to another staff member how she “stuck it to me.” That employee mentioned the conversation to his/her spouse who by happenstance, knew me and of my prior relationship with that law clerk, Elizabeth Clarke. That information was relayed on to me. Until that point, I was unaware that Ms. Clarke had left her former employer, Celino and Barnes.

I was later also made aware that on May 27, 2009, the day I was formally charged, Ms. Clarke, already employed by the appellate court; contacted WHEC TV, with some extremely derogatory comments concerning me. Her comments are available upon request.

After Rochester attorney, David Murante, backed out of completing my CPL 440.10, refunding half his fee; on March 15, 2015 I was in the process of completing the CPL 440.10 on my own; addressing the final issue. That was the prosecutor replacing the actual charge, conspiracy, with a non-existent kidnapping. On a whim, I entered the words “jury note” into the computer. Lo and behold, numerous reversals were displayed of convictions as a result of the judge to return defendant to the courtroom upon receipt of a jury note (CPL 310.30, also Fed CR P rule 43a) The jury in my case had submitted a note requesting the definition of conspiracy. This was most likely as a result of conspiracy, the actual charge, being replaced with kidnapping.

To make matters even far worse, unknown to myself as well as counsel, the jury had submitted an earlier note, requesting the exhibits. That note was complied with, but concealed from defendant, counsel, transcript, and court record. I only became aware of what turned out to be the jury note #1, by happenstance. This when the court clerk, inadvertently, sent me a copy of the court reporter’s timeline. That timeline not only revealed the concealed jury note #1, but several other errors as well. Failure to return defendant to the courtroom is the most crucial error any court can make, requiring reversal of conviction.