
Murder conviction tossed all because killer's sleepy pal was kicked out of NYC courtroom: ruling
The state Appellate Division panel said in a bizarre ruling last week that convicted killer Donald White was denied a public trial because Judge Michael Aloise booted his friend from the courtroom before White was found guilty of murder, robbery and weapons possession in 2016.
3 A state appellate court threw out a Queens murder conviction because the killer's friend was booted for falling asleep.
Christopher Sadowski
Advertisement
'Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence,' according to the decision, which was filed Wednesday.
'Nevertheless, the defendant is entitled to a new trial because the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excluding a spectator from the courtroom, thereby violating the defendant's right to a public trial,' the judges said.
The ruling means White, who is still being held in state prison, gets a new trial in the case.
Advertisement
Veteran civil rights attorney Ron Kuby, who was not involved in the case, chided Aloise's decision to toss White's pal, who was not identified, from the trial on the first day.
'Judges serve the public, not the other way around,' Kuby told The Post. 'A courtroom is not a judicial fiefdom. Every defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
3 A state appellate court said Donald White was denied a 'public' trial because his friend was kicked out of court.
REUTERS
'Judicial pettiness and peevishness are not reasons to remove spectators,' he added. 'Now a murder case must be retried and the victim's loved ones must go through agony again, all because a judge got pissed at a spectator for napping.'
Advertisement
White, 36, was charged with killing pot peddler Henry Jenkins in St. Albans in June 2010.
At trial, his pal dozed off in court during the first day of testimony.
Aloise's decision to kick him out came after the jury left the room, but the Appellate Division judges said he was too hasty, and didn't consider other options — like warning the man not to do it again.
Even though the judge reversed his decision the next day, the appeals panel said White's friend may not have known that — and thereby didn't know he was welcome back in the courtroom.
Advertisement
3 Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz is reviewing the decision to throw out Donald White's murder conviction.
Stephen Yang
'The spectator was not present at the time and had no reason to believe that he could return to the courtroom was insufficient to remedy the court's error,' the ruling said.
A spokesperson for the Queens District Attorney's Office said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling.
Al Baker, a spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration, which oversees the Empire State court system, declined to comment on Aloise's decision or the appellate ruling.
White's attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
16 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Man sues over girlfriend's abortion in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Orchestrating the effort is Jonathan Mitchell, a conservative attorney who helped construct Texas's 'heartbeat' law, the most restrictive abortion measure passed before Roe's fall. The lawsuit Mitchell set in motion alleges that the doctor violated the Comstock Act, a 19th century federal law that bans the mailing of 'obscene' materials, including abortion-related materials. Now in a post-Roe era, Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates have worried that the government would invoke Comstock to ban medication abortion, which accounts for most abortions in the United States. Advertisement The case is a new approach alleging state and federal law violations - filed in federal, rather than state court - though it's too early to tell how viable that strategy will be. Advertisement 'This very much has the feeling of taking matters into your own hands,' said Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at the University of California at Davis. The plaintiff, Jerry Rodriguez, is suing California-based physician Remy Coeytaux for more than $75,000. Rodriguez, who stated that he is suing on behalf of 'all current and future fathers of unborn children,' is asking the court for an order blocking Coeytaux from mailing abortion pills. His complaint adds that he plans to sue the manufacturers and distributors of the abortion pills if they are identified during discovery. Coeytaux did not respond to a request for comment from The Washington Post, and it was unclear whether he had retained an attorney as of Thursday. In Texas, women who get an abortion cannot be prosecuted. But antiabortion activists in the state have publicly sought out men who are willing to bring cases against people who helped their partners have an abortion. Mitchell, who declined to comment Wednesday, has represented men in at least two similar cases out of Texas, both filed in state court. In a 2023 lawsuit, a man alleged that three women helped his ex-wife get abortion pills to end her pregnancy. That case was later dropped. In May 2024, Mitchell helped a man file a petition to investigate an ex-partner's out-of-state abortion, setting up for a wrongful-death lawsuit. In the new federal court complaint, filed Sunday, Rodriguez alleges that Coeytaux mailed abortion pills to his girlfriend's estranged husband in September 2024. The pair were not divorced when Rodriguez and the woman began dating but were already legally separated, according to the lawsuit. Rodriguez's girlfriend, whom The Post is not naming because she is not a plaintiff and to protect her privacy, took abortion pills on two occasions, once in September and another in January, to end two pregnancies after her estranged husband and mother 'pressured her,' according to the complaint. On Monday, Rodriguez filed a separate wrongful-death lawsuit in state court against the estranged husband and mother; Mitchell is also representing him in that case. Few details of the relationships between Rodriguez, his girlfriend, her mother and her estranged husband are included in the lawsuit. According to Rodriguez's complaints, his girlfriend is now pregnant again. Advertisement Since the Supreme Court in 2022 struck down the constitutional right to the procedure, the number of abortions has increased, bolstered by medication abortions enabled by telehealth, data shows. In an attempt to thwart that access, officials in red states are launching attacks on the shield laws in blue states that keep the pills flowing across the country. Texas and Louisiana are pursuing legal action against a New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to patients in those states, which both ban nearly all abortions. To the frustration of prosecutors, New York officials have refused to comply, citing the state's shield law. As a result, the conservative strategy to punish providers had slowed in state courts, though experts say the cases could end up on the Supreme Court's docket and ultimately reshape medication abortion access. In the meantime, the federal lawsuit has emerged as a new method to potentially curb abortion access. Carmel Shachar, a law professor at Harvard Law School, said the case designed by Mitchell uses a different legal framework, but the end goal remains the same - to 'close that telehealth loophole.' Advertisement


News24
an hour ago
- News24
Philippines Vice President Sara Duterte wins legal victory as Supreme Court throws out impeachment
Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte won a legal victory. The country's Supreme Court struck down an impeachment complaint against her. President Ferdinand Marcos jnr distanced himself from the proceedings. Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte scored a big legal win on Friday when the Supreme Court struck down an impeachment complaint against her, ruling that it was unconstitutional. The lower house of Congress had impeached Duterte in February, accusing her of misusing public funds, amassing unusual wealth and threatening to kill Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos jnr, the First Lady, and the House Speaker. The court said it was not absolving Duterte of the charges, but the ruling may nevertheless be a huge boost for her political ambitions. She is widely seen as a strong contender for the 2028 presidency, which Marcos cannot contest due to a single-term limit for Philippine presidents, but an impeachment trial conviction would have seen her banned from office for life. Duterte has said the move to impeach her, which came amid a bitter feud with Marcos, was politically motivated. 'This unanimous decision has once again upheld the rule of law and reinforced the constitutional limits against abuse of the impeachment process,' Duterte's lawyers said in a statement. Duterte is the daughter of firebrand former president Rodrigo Duterte, who is now in the custody of the International Criminal Court over his bloody war on drugs. He has denied wrongdoing. In a unanimous decision, the country's top court agreed with Duterte's contention that Congress violated a constitutional safeguard against more than one impeachment proceeding against the same official within a year. More than 200 members of the lower house had endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint to the Senate, having not acted on the first three filings. 'The articles of impeachment, which was the fourth complaint, violated the one year period ban because there were three complaints that came ahead of it,' Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting told a media briefing. As a result, the Senate then did not have the authority to convene an impeachment tribunal, the court added. Holmes Chan/AFP Marcos has distanced himself from the proceedings against his estranged vice president, saying the government's executive branch cannot intervene in the matter. His office said on Friday the court's decision must be respected. A spokesperson for the Senate said the upper chamber was duty-bound to respect the court's ruling. There was no immediate comment from members of the House prosecution panel, but a spokesperson for the lower house said that while it respects the court, 'its constitutional duty to uphold truth and accountability does not end here.' The Supreme Court said a fresh complaint could be filed against Duterte once the ban expires. 'We remain prepared to address the allegations at the proper time and before the appropriate forum,' Duterte's lawyers said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
After accusing Obama of treason, Trump now says the former president 'owes me big'
Donald Trump has been intensely focused on Barack Obama in recent days, accusing his Democratic predecessor of "treason." Now the current president is saying the former president "owes" him. "He owes me, Obama owes me big," Trump said July 25 while speaking to reporters outside the White House before departing on a trip to Scotland. Obama's debt to Trump in the current president's mind? The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in office. The ruling came in a case involving Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Struggling to shake off questions about his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, Trump has focused lately on leveling allegations against Obama. National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard alleged in a press briefing that the Obama administration promoted a 'contrived narrative' that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. Gabbard released declassified documents she said support her claims of Obama's "treasonous conspiracy" to undermine Trump. The Justice Department also announced the formation of a 'Strike Force' that would 'investigate potential next legal steps' stemming from Gabbard's disclosures. Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump, according to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 2019 final report and a 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee assessment. Obama's office pointed to the Senate report in responding to Gabbard's claims. 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," Obama's office said in a statement on July 22. 'These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.' Trump had long said the investigations into his first White House campaign and its connections with Moscow are a hoax. Before departing for Scotland, Trump claimed Obama committed "criminal acts" but "he has immunity" from prosecution. 'It probably helps him a lot, probably helps him a lot the immunity ruling," Trump said. Trump has faced intense backlash since the Department of Justice released a memo July 7 attempting to close the book on the Epstein case. Epstein died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking minors. The memo supported the idea that Epstein died by suicide and said investigators did not find a "client list," dispelling conspiracy theories about the case. Obama's office said Trump's focus on the former president is a "weak attempt at distraction." 'Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response," Obama's office said in the July 22 statement. "But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one." Contributing: Sudiksha Kochi This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump says Barack Obama 'owes me, Obama owes me big.'