New York Criminal Attorney Blog
In a New York Burglary case, People v Moore, the First Department confronted a familiar but consequential problem: the prosecution disclosed exculpatory DNA results late. Rather than ordering a mistrial or dismissing the case outright, the trial court imposed targeted sanctions. The parties entered a stipulation that squarely informed the jury the DNA excluded the defendant as a contributor for one charged incident, and the court dismissed the count tied to that evidence. On appeal, the panel affirmed, emphasizing that the remedy preserved a “meaningful opportunity” to use the material and cured any prejudice. This outcome underscores a key Brady principle in New York practice: prejudice is the touchstone, and courts tailor remedies to neutralize it, not to punish.
The opinion matters beyond its facts because it illustrates how late Brady disclosures are managed when charges span different dates and locations. Segregating the tainted count and giving jurors an unfiltered exculpatory stipulation allowed the remainder of the case to proceed on unaffected incidents. That approach offers a blueprint for both trial courts and defense counsel facing compartmentalized, multi-event prosecutions.
What Counts as a “Meaningful Opportunity”
A meaningful opportunity requires more than a perfunctory acknowledgement that evidence exists. In Moore, the stipulation did substantive work. It told the jury in clear terms that forensic testing excluded the defendant from the DNA mixture associated with a specific burglary date. The court then dismissed that count, eliminating any risk that jurors would speculate the DNA pointed in a different direction or that the prosecution could reframe the result as trivial. Because the remaining counts involved different premises and different dates, the panel found no reasonable possibility the late DNA disclosure for one incident influenced the verdicts on the others.
Defense lawyers should note two practical lessons. First, a precise stipulation often communicates exculpatory value more forcefully than contested testimony because it avoids hedging, jargon, and rehabilitative spin. Second, a dismissal that tracks the scope of the forensic result both protects the verdicts on unaffected counts and preserves appellate clarity about why the remedy was sufficient.
Calibrating Sanctions to Prejudice in Real Time
Remedies for late Brady disclosures exist on a spectrum that includes continuances, preclusion, adverse inferences, stipulations, count dismissals, and in extreme cases, mistrial. Moore reinforces that the sanction should match the prejudice actually created by the delay. When evidence bears on a discrete incident in a multi-count indictment, trial courts can isolate the harm without collapsing the entire prosecution. When the same evidence threads through every count or shapes the defense theory as a whole, broader relief may be warranted. The through line is record-based calibration rather than categorical rules.
This calibration happens in real time. Defense counsel must build a concrete record explaining why the timing of the disclosure impaired trial strategy, cross-examination, expert retention, or opening statements. Specificity matters: identify the witnesses who would have been recalled, the exhibits that would have been prepared, and the alternative defense theory that became viable once the disclosure landed. The more precise the showing, the more likely the court will craft a remedy that restores parity.
Strategic Use of Stipulations and Dismissals
Stipulations are often underused in Brady litigation. Moore shows how they can advance defense interests when time is short and the jury needs a clean message. A well-drafted stipulation can do three things at once: present the exculpatory fact without dilution, avoid the risk of government rehabilitation through expert narrative, and free the court to dismiss a count where the late disclosure guts the State’s proof. For defense teams, the drafting process is strategic advocacy. The language should be specific, neutral in tone, and tightly paired with the relief sought, whether that is dismissal, a curative instruction, or limits on summation.
When a case involves multiple incidents at different locations, defense counsel should also press the court to consider whether the jury needs an instruction that the exculpatory result bears only on the specified date, while making clear in summation that the State cannot import strength from unrelated counts to compensate for the shortfall on the dismissed one. That framing protects against spillover reasoning and preserves the integrity of the tailored remedy.
Building the Record Under New York’s Discovery Regime
Although Moore arose in the context of late Brady disclosure, modern New York discovery rules also impose affirmative, time-bound disclosure duties. Effective Brady litigation now blends constitutional principles with statutory timelines. Defense counsel should document requests, calendar compliance milestones, and memorialize any adjournments attributed to discovery shortfalls. When the defense can show diligence and specific prejudice, courts are more receptive to concrete sanctions that level the field.
For readers seeking a broader, plain-English overview of how New York criminal cases are defended from arraignment through trial, this guide to core criminal defense strategies provides useful context about discovery management, motion practice, and trial tactics that often intersect with Brady issues. Understanding that larger framework helps situate late-disclosure remedies within the overall defense plan.
Bottom Line
People v Moore confirms that late disclosure of exculpatory evidence does not automatically unwind a trial. The question is whether the defendant received a meaningful opportunity to use the information and whether a tailored sanction can neutralize the prejudice. In multi-count prosecutions, stipulations and targeted dismissals can achieve that balance. The defense role is to make the prejudice visible, propose precise remedies, and lock the solution into the record so the jury hears the exculpatory truth in full.
Call Tilem & Associates, P.C. to Schedule a Free Consultation with an Experienced Attorney
If a case involves late-disclosed exculpatory evidence, swift action can shape both the remedy and the result. Call Tilem & Associates, P.C. at 877-377-8666 for a focused assessment of the disclosure, a plan to secure effective sanctions, and a trial strategy that ensures the jury hears what the Constitution requires.