Courts and Law Brooklyn Boro

Justice Leventhal covers Confrontation After Crawford at Brooklyn Bar Association CLE

March 15, 2016 By Rob Abruzzese Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Justice John M. Leventhal, associate justice, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department, reviewed decisions regarding scenarios of what is and what is not testimonial requiring the right to confrontation at a recent Brooklyn Bar Association Continuing Legal Education seminar. Eagle photos by Rob Abruzzese
Justice John M. Leventhal, associate justice, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department, reviewed decisions regarding scenarios of what is and what is not testimonial requiring the right to confrontation at a recent Brooklyn Bar Association Continuing Legal Education seminar. Eagle photos by Rob Abruzzese
Share this:

Justice John M. Leventhal presented a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) lecture at the Brooklyn Bar Association (BBA) titled “Confrontation After Crawford,” where he discussed the implications and effects of the U.S. Supreme Court Case Crawford v. Washington at the BBA headquarters on Remsen Street Monday night.

“Judge Leventhal was first appointed an associate justice in the Appellate Division in 2008,” said Steve Cohn as he introduced Leventhal. “He is a frequent lecturer on evidence. In 2015, he received the Brooklyn Bar Association’s annual award for outstanding achievement. He was also the editor-in-chief of our Barrister.

Subscribe to our newsletters

“A graduate of Brooklyn Law School, he’s involved in their alumni,” Cohn continued. “He received the BWBA award for recognition for outstanding service. He was the first domestic violence judge in the state of New York.”

Justice Leventhal was assisted by a PowerPoint presentation as he reviewed decisions, both state and federal, regarding scenarios of what is and what is not testimonial requiring the right to confrontation.

“In 1980, the Supreme Court, in a case Ohio v. Roberts, allowed what a trial judge would say is reliable hearsay,” Leventhal explained. “As early as 1992, [the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia] was trying to overturn that decision. He had the right case in Crawford v. Washington, and he convinced his colleagues that the only way to allow out-of-court statements sought to be admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, is if the person testifies on the stand, or if they are unavailable, dead or whatever, there is a prior opportunity for the defense to cross-examine.

“On that day — March 8, 2004 — the Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington and it was immediately evident to prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges nationwide that the landscape of the rules of evidence regarding the admissibility of hearsay would forever be altered,” Leventhal continued.

Leventhal lectured on the topic for almost two hours and discussed the implications of Crawford v. Washington, why the 1980 case made Justice Scalia upset and how to satisfy the implications of Crawford as the rules continue to evolve.

* * *

Justice Leventhal will return to the BBA in less than two weeks for another CLE lecture, “Wrongful Convictions and Actual Innocence,” on March 30.

It will be moderated by Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix and will feature Mark J. Hale of the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Conviction Review Unit; Karen A. Newirth of the Innocence Project; and Hon. Matthew J. D’Emic, administrative judge for Criminal Matters, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial District. For more info on the upcoming CLE seminar and others, visit www.BrooklynBar.org.

 


Leave a Comment

Related Articles

Leave a Comment