Conflicting Officer Testimony Required Suppression of Gun
Two police officers testified at a suppression hearing about a car stop and the alleged recovery of a gun. The Appellate Division concluded that because their testimony “sharply conflicted with each other” and “both could not have been true,” it was unclear exactly what happened. Therefore, the prosecution failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the police acted lawfully, and the gun should have been suppressed. The second-degree criminal possession of a weapon conviction was reversed and dismissed. Because Mr. Austin subsequently pled guilty on other unrelated counts with promised sentences related to this conviction, the case was remitted to afford him an opportunity to withdraw those pleas. Indictment Dismissed & Remitted.
Samuel Barr represented Mr. Austin
