People v. Neu

1 Citing case

  1. People v. Marlowe

    167 A.D.2d 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 7 times
    In People v. Marlowe, 167 A.D.2d 692, 692, 563 N.Y.S.2d 272, 273 (1990), appeal denied, 77 N.Y.2d 963, 570 N.Y.S.2d 497, 573 N.E.2d 585 (1991), the court observed that the accused's motion for funds to hire an investigator was one of "sundry pretrial motions... for the most part directed at eliminating obstacles routinely encountered by pro se incarcerated litigants, difficulties about which defendant was generally made aware by [the trial] court and which defendant presumably took into account by choosing to represent himself."

    Contrary to defendant's assertion, the terms of that arrangement were in evidence, having been elicited during his cross-examination; accordingly, reference thereto was permissible (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109-110). Although the prosecutor in his closing, perhaps more than necessary, adverted to the fact that defendant had "lied" when he testified in the 1987 prosecution of Herman Neu (see, People v. Neu, 145 A.D.2d 784, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 1019), reversal is not necessary. As already observed, but for one exception no objection was made to the summation. Furthermore, defendant specifically acknowledged during his own testimony that he had "lied" during the 1987 trial, making fair comment on that admission by the prosecutor appropriate (see, People v. La Forge, 107 A.D.2d 896).