People v. Bayard, 938 N.E.2d 987 (N.Y. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Bayard, 938 N.E.2d 987 (N.Y. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
52 citation events (52 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Jordan, 154 A.D.3d 1176 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
15 N.Y.3d at 898 that the omitted name had exculpatory or impeachment value, there is no reasonable possibility that, if the officer’s identity had been discovered, the outcome…1 citing caseopening of page *898 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Jordan, 154 A.D.3d 1176 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).published
    At trial, the defense highlighted these facts during opening statements and repeatedly used the information during cross-examination to challenge the credibility of various witnesses, including, most notably, the CI and the lead detective…
Other citing cases7 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Tashiem Bayard
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 17, 2010.
Published opinion
938 N.E.2d 987
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Anastasia B. Heeger, Richard M. Greenberg and Rosemary Herbert of counsel), for appellant., Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City Karen Schlossberg and Sheryl Feldman of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 50 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Prior to trial in this robbery prosecution, the People turned over a police omniform system complaint report that included descriptive information relating to the crime and the perpetrators but did not contain the name of the officer that compiled that information. Defendant contends that the People’s failure to disclose the officer’s identity amounts to a Brady violation warranting reversal of his conviction. We disagree. Assuming[*898] that the omitted name had exculpatory or impeachment value, there is no reasonable possibility that, if the officer’s identity had been discovered, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different (see People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67 [1990]). The trial court allowed the defense to make significant use of the unsigned report during cross-examination of the complainant and lead detective and, as an ameliorative measure, permitted the defense to challenge the complainant’s identification by admitting a description provided by a nontestifying eyewitness.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.