New York Criminal Attorney Blog
In People v. T.P. (2025), the New York Court of Appeals reversed a conviction for first-degree manslaughter, finding that trial counsel’s failure to object during a highly improper prosecutorial summation deprived the defendant of her right to a fair trial.
Case Summary and Facts
The defendant, referred to as T.P., was charged with first-degree manslaughter under Penal Law § 125.20(1) after she stabbed and killed her boyfriend during a violent confrontation. T.P. contended she acted in self-defense under Penal Law § 35.15, explaining that the victim had repeatedly abused her—physically, sexually, and emotionally—which was corroborated by witnesses and supported by a prior order of protection.
On the night of the incident, the confrontation escalated significantly. According to T.P., her boyfriend forcibly performed oral sex, strangled her, and during the ensuing struggle, fearing for her life, she grabbed a knife and stabbed him once.
Problems in the Prosecutor’s Summation
During closing arguments, the prosecutor made two key misstatements. First by mistakenly stating, “You never heard testimony that [the defendant] was in fear for her life,” despite T.P.’s direct testimony to the contrary. Second, by labeling T.P.’s testimony as “lies” and accusing her of telling “unsubstantiated wild lies,” essentially urging jurors not to believe her.
These remarks were not mere slip-ups—they struck at the heart of T.P.’s self-defense theory and arguably influenced the jury’s perception of her credibility. Shockingly, defense counsel did not object during trial.
The Court of Appeals’ Analysis
New York law requires attorneys to provide more than cursory or symbolic defense; they must offer “meaningful representation.” The Court of Appeals found that:
-
Mischaracterization of evidence by the prosecutor was beyond acceptable bounds.
-
Unfounded personal attacks constituted prosecutorial misconduct.
-
Defense counsel’s silence meant T.P. was unprotected when it mattered most.
Given the pervasiveness of those misstatements, the Court ruled that defense counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance, warranting reversal.
Why People v. T.P. Serves as an Important Reminder
In cases where self-defense is claimed—particularly those involving domestic violence—credibility is often the decisive factor. A prosecutor’s unfair attacks can sway a jury, and it’s critical that defense counsel promptly intervenes to preserve both the record and the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
A few key takeaways from the case include:
-
Prompt objections matter: Lawyers must speak up when opposing counsel misstates facts or attacks a defendant’s credibility.
-
Credibility is central: In self-defense cases, a defendant’s honesty is often the crux of their entire defense.
-
Ineffective counsel is avoidable: Representation is not measured by outcome alone, but by whether counsel fulfilled their duty in real time.
Final Thoughts
For anyone facing criminal charges—especially those grounded in justification or self-defense—People v. T.P. highlights the necessity of proactive, assertive defense. If your attorney failed to object to clear prosecutorial misconduct, you may have grounds for post-trial relief.
Need a Strong Defense?
At Tilem & Associates, P.C., we believe that effective advocacy isn’t optional—it’s essential. If you’ve been charged with a crime it is imperative that your attorney counsel challenges any unfair tactics used by the prosecution. Call 877-377-8666 today for a confidential consultation and skilled representation. Your rights depend on it.