Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
In a New York felony assault prosecution, our firm represented a client charged with assault in the second degree for allegedly stabbing another individual with a pair of scissors inside a barbershop. Because the client had a prior record, prosecutors also charged criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, along with a misdemeanor third-degree assault count. On the original indictment, the client faced a potential sentence of up to seven years of incarceration if convicted of the top charge.
We challenged the quality and completeness of the investigation. The scissors at issue belonged to the complainant, who worked as a barber, and officers initially appeared to treat the incident as a fight. Only after being on scene for roughly half an hour did they recover a pair of scissors from the floor. We argued that the investigation was rushed, that critical steps were overlooked, and that law enforcement did not initially approach the matter as a serious stabbing case until later in the process.
As we prepared for trial, we conducted a meticulous review of the discovery and identified significant gaps. Notably, there were additional body-worn camera recordings referenced in the paperwork that had not been produced. We moved to preclude those recordings from use at trial based on the late or incomplete disclosure, and the court agreed, limiting the prosecution’s ability to rely on that footage.
We also noticed inconsistencies concerning clothing. The paperwork was unclear on whether the clothing had ever been collected or vouchered as evidence, and nothing had been turned over to the defense. During cross-examination at trial, the case detective testified that he had, in fact, seized and vouchered the complainant’s clothing. The next day, the prosecution produced the clothing and related voucher for the first time.
Given this late disclosure, we requested appropriate relief. The court granted an adverse-inference instruction, permitting the jury to infer that the failure to timely turn over or present the clothing evidence could mean that it was unfavorable to the prosecution’s theory of a stabbing. This significantly undercut the strength of the state’s case on the most serious assault count.
In closing argument, we emphasized what the jury could and could not see on the available video recordings. While the footage captured a physical altercation and showed our client forcefully pushing or throwing the complainant, there was no clear moment on the video that depicted an actual stabbing with scissors. We argued that, in light of the discovery lapses, the adverse inference, and the absence of a definitive stabbing on video, the prosecution had not met its burden to prove the elements of second-degree assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
After deliberations, the jury acquitted our client of assault in the second degree but found our client guilty of the third-degree assault charge and of possessing the scissors as a weapon in light of a prior record. Although these remaining counts were still serious, the not-guilty verdict on the top assault charge eliminated the greatest portion of the client’s sentencing exposure. Instead of facing a potential seven-year term on a violent felony assault, the client confronted a substantially shorter sentence on the lesser counts.
Every assault prosecution turns on its own facts, evidence, and procedural history, and no particular outcome can be promised. This case, however, demonstrates how exhaustive review of discovery, aggressive enforcement of disclosure obligations, and focused trial advocacy on investigative gaps and evidentiary weaknesses can materially reduce a client’s exposure even when the jury returns convictions on lesser included offenses.