Trial Counsel’s Admitted Failures Results in New Trial
During the execution of a search warrant, a Brooklyn police officer seized 11 credit cards in Mr. Goodluck’s name. Defense counsel later moved to suppress the physical evidence, but did not contend that the credit cards were outside the scope of the warrant and therefore unlawfully seized. Trial counsel provided an affirmation in support of Mr. Goodluck’s C.P.L. § 440.10 motion, stating that he “failed to consider that the seized credit cards were not described in the search warrant” and “failed to research the applicable law on exceptions to the warrant requirement.” Counsel further admitted that his failure to move to suppress the credit cards was not a strategic decision. Nevertheless, the trial court denied the § 440.10 motion without a hearing.
The Appellate Division reversed. It noted that a defense attorney’s investigation of the law, facts, and relevant issues is essential. Because trial counsel acknowledged that he did not fully investigate the case or gather the information needed to determine the best course of action, Mr. Goodluck did not receive effective assistance of counsel. The conviction was vacated and a new trial ordered.
Cynthia Colt represented Mr. Goodluck