Court: Drug case can proceed

A Luzerne County drug case against a man can proceed despite an appellate court’s ruling that his rights were violated when a witness testified by video during a court hearing.

Kingston police charged Jaquil L. Atkinson, 24, of New York City, in January 2005 after officers allegedly found crack cocaine hidden in a corn chip bag stuffed into a boot. The boot was inside one of two duffel bags in a vehicle, according to arrest records.

Atkinson was one of three passengers in the vehicle that was pulled over on Market Street for failing to use a turn signal.

Matthew Tighe, 31, formerly of Scranton, another passenger, pleaded guilty in November 2005 to a drug charge and was sentenced to four to eight years in state prison, according to court records.

Atkinson’s lawyer, Joseph Cosgrove, challenged the charges, claiming Atkinson did not possess or was not in control of the crack.

At a suppression hearing on June 28, 2007, Tighe testified by video from the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield that he and Atkinson purchased boots in New York City for the sole purpose of hiding the crack, according to court records. Tighe also identified Atkinson as one of the three passengers in the vehicle.

Cosgrove objected to Tighe testifying by video, arguing Atkinson had a right to confront any witnesses against him face to face.

In its ruling of Dec. 10, the state Superior Court found that the use of video is constitutional in certain cases, noting child victims routinely testify by video to avoid emotional situations and video testimony is used for witnesses who reside in another country.

But in the Atkinson’s case, the appellate court determined Tighe’s video testimony was used “to expedite disposition” of the hearing.

“Having prisoners testify by video is a more convenient method, considering the logistics associated with transporting a prisoner. However, convenience and cost-saving are not sufficient reasons to deny constitutional rights,” wrote Superior Court Judge Robert A. Freedberg. “While efficiency and security are important concerns, they are not sufficient reasons to circumvent (Atkinson’s) constitutional right to confrontation.”

Although the Superior Court ruled Atkinson’s right to confront a witness against him was violated, the charges against him can proceed.

Freedberg recognized that the driver, who was not charged, permitted police to search the vehicle that was lawfully stopped for a traffic violation. And, none of the occupants took ownership of the duffel bags in which the crack was found.

It remains unknown if the ruling will have an impact on the use of video conferencing in court hearings. County President Judge Chester Muroski could not be reached for comment on Thursday.

Luzerne County courts have been using video testimony in a variety of cases for nearly seven years. Magisterial district courts were recently equipped with video conferencing, while Wilkes-Barre Central Court has used video to conduct arraignments and preliminary hearings since 2005.

Clear 38°

News

Superior Court says video testimony won’t stop prosecution of NYC man.

Place Quick Ads