People v. Gordon

In People v. Gordon, 88 N.Y.2d 92 (1996), the defendant was indicted on robbery charges for his role in the armed holdup of the manager of a restaurant. Following the robbery, the manager gave a description of the robbers to the police. He stated that one of the robbers had brandished a gun. The police canvassed the neighborhood and found the defendant and another individual who fit the description given. A pellet gun was found in the possession of the other individual. Both individuals were brought back to the restaurant. The manager initially was unable to identify the defendant. After some hesitation, he was able to make an identification of the defendant. At the Wade hearing, it was revealed that the manager identified the defendant after the police officer placed the gun in the defendant's hand and requested that he point it in the direction of the manager. Needless to say, the identification was suppressed, as the result of an improper, unconstitutional, and unduly suggestive procedure. Counsel also moved for dismissal of the indictment based upon the suppression of the identification procedure. The trial Court granted the motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal and the Court of Appeals upheld the suppression. The Court of Appeals finding that the indictment was not rendered legally insufficient due to the suppression of the identification evidence, distinguished between evidence which is incompetent when presented to the Grand Jury and evidence which is prima facie competent until rendered incompetent by subsequent extrinsic proof at a suppression hearing. It held that the evidence of the identification was prima facie competent when presented to the Grand Jury. The Court also found that there was no legal impediment to conviction simply because the People's case was weakened without evidence of the identification. What is unclear in Gordon, and what is not discussed is whether the People's knowledge or lack of knowledge of the actions of the police officer when they presented the evidence of the identification to the Grand Jury would have been pertinent to the Court's analysis.