|
NEW YORK--Ruling that the constitutional rights of the man whose crime led to the enactment of Kendra's Law had been violated, New York's Court of Appeals has overturned the conviction of Andrew Goldstein and ordered a new trial in the case.
In a 6-1 ruling, the court found that the mentally ill Goldstein's right to a fair trial had been violated when he was denied the right to confront his accusers because the prosecution's psychiatric expert was allowed to give testimony about hearsay conversations she had had with witnesses who were not available to be cross examined by the defense.
On Jan. 3, 1999, Goldstein, 30 and an occasionally violent schizophrenic from Fredonia shoved Kendra Webdale, 32, who he didn't know, into the path of an oncoming subway train in Manhattan.
Goldstein's first trial ended in a mistrial after the defense relied entirely on an insanity defense but the jury deadlocked. He was convicted after a second trial in May 2000 of second degree murder and is serving 25 years to life in prison.
The court decision does not result in his release from prison pending the new trial.
Goldstein's case resulted in the enactment of Kendra's Law which allows compulsory court-ordered treatment of the mentally ill. The law was signed by Gov. George Pataki in 1999 and allows government to supervise mental patients who live in communities to insure that they don't hurt themselves or others and that they take their prescribed anti-psychotic medications.
Although Goldstein had been prescribed medication for schizophrenia, he did not take it.
Writing for the majority, Judge Robert Smith said that "the constitutional rules that guarantee defendants a fair trial must be enforced and few such rules are more important that the one that guarantees defendants the right to confront witnesses against them".
The reversal was mandated as the result of the landmark opinion rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington which bars testimonial hearsay in criminal cases unless the defendant can question the witness as such violates the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Prosecutors agreed that Goldstein suffered from a mental illness but said that was using his disability as an excuse whenever he behaved anti-socially.
The Manhattan district attorney's office prosecuted the case and is considering an appeal of the decision t the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge Susan Phillips Read was the sole dissenting vote, saying that while the testimony of Dr. Angela Hegarty, the psychiatrist, should have been limited, the conviction should still stand because the statements the psychiatrist made were "harmless" and did not affect the outcome of the case.
Goldstein was represented by Natalie B. Read of the Legal Aid Society. She said that the defense had always insisted that Goldstein is "profoundly mentally ill" that the decision ensures "that a jury will have an opportunity to properly consider his psychiatric defense".
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/dec05/155opn05.pdf 12-22-05
© 2005 North
Country Gazette
|
