What is with Sedita

[Mr. Lackawanna]

I also agree Sedita needs to go.
I won't vote for him as a DA and I hope he is not appointed to a judgeship.

[dtwarren]

Appealing a Supreme court judge ruling is possible albeit expensive, winning is very difficult bordering on impossible. The fact he gets 176 k a year in my opinion oversteps the bounds of public service.

It is no more, or less, expensive than appealing a county court judge's decision.

[grump]

One could present a litany of cases either ignored or bungled by Sedita and his staff. Remember the guy who walked away from a guilty plea to manslaughter because Sedita's staff didn't know the applicable statute of limitations?

[nogods]

One could present a litany of cases either ignored or bungled by Sedita and his staff. Remember the guy who walked away from a guilty plea to manslaughter because Sedita's staff didn't know the applicable statute of limitations?

did he walk because the DA din't know the statute had run or ignored the statute hoping the defense would miss the issue, or did the DA bring the action too late when he could have brought it earlier? There's a big difference between those two scenarios.

PS: I read the court's decision. The issue was not raised by defense counsel. It was first raised on appeal. It revolved around whether the defendant was in NY for 80 days during a period that there was no definitive proof of his location. The court found on the facts for the defendant.

Hard to hang that as some time error on the DA.

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york...-op-22410.html

[grump]

So the DA staff didn't know the facts? The DA accepted the manslaughter plea in settlement of a murder charge for which there is no statute of limitations as you well know as an Esq. yourself. If the DA staff were unsure of the facts the plea shouldn't have been offered or entertained until the facts were sure. And what is an appellate court doing developing and reviewing facts that weren't before the trial court in the first place? Just asking.

[grump]

I was wrong; the defendant was convicted on a verdict of manslaughter after the DA argued for that as an alternate ground for conviction instead of charging only on murder for which there was no limitations period. So the DA never determined whether manslaughter was a viable alternative despite the numerous questions raised about the whereabouts of the defendant. While it may be true that a DA has to establish the timeliness of the prosecution as part of his case if the limitations defense is raised, this case makes clear that a DA better have his ducks in a row whenever factual issues re: the applicable limitations period raise their ugly head. If they weren't dead certain on the statute they never should've argued for the reduced charge. As for why defense counsel were ignorant and failed to raise the issue I will express no opinion.