Kevin M. Doyle, Capital Defender, Albany (
Barry J. Fisher and
Matthew Alpern of counsel), for defendant.
Stephen F. Lungen, District Attorney of Sullivan County, Monticello, for plaintiff.
OPINION OF THE COURT
FRANK J. LaBUDA, J. On July 8, 1999 the defendant was charged by indictment No. 115-99 charging him with two counts of murder in the first degree, three counts of murder in the second degree, four counts of burglary in the first degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon, three counts of attempted murder in the first degree, one count of attempted murder in the second degree and three counts of assault in the first degree. (1) would delay or disrupt the proceedings; or (2) would create a conflict of interest; or (3) would result in an unfair administration of justice. The trial court, in exercising its discretion to manage the courtroom, must not interfere with the attorney-client relationship except in cases of overriding fairness or courtroom efficiency lest the defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel become violated. (People v Knowles, supra ; People v Seabrook, 241 AD2d 325 [1st Dept 1997].) This court finds that the defense tactic of having separate attorneys cross-examine a witness as to separate legal issues[*] is consistent with the effective assistance of counsel, is in accord with the fair administration of justice and will not disrupt the orderly conduct of the proceedings. Neither is it unfair to the witness since the cross-examination is not repetitive and covers three legally and factually different scenarios. It should also be noted that there is nothing preventing the prosecutor from using one or more assistants, who may have a particular legal expertise, in the examination of a single witness in that specialized area of law. Therefore, in accordance with this court's findings, the objection of the prosecutor to allow separate defense attorneys to cross-examine a witness upon separate legal issues is overruled. [*] Mapp/Dunaway, Payton and Huntley hearings.