Patrick Griffin - False Accusation
Griffin, Patrick ; sexual assault, fraud; NRE: perjury/false accusation, no crime, prosecutor misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence
[671:34]; 1st Dept. 4/2/98; reversed , due to prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary errors , etc.
"[Griffin], a gastroenterologist, began treating the 45-year-old female complainant for stomach complaints...in 1991. Over the next three years she made regular visits to [Griffin's] private office for the treatment of the stomach disorder, as well as depression...On the morning of January 13, 1995, the complainant appeared at the doctor's office for a scheduled upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. The complainant testified at trial that during the highly invasive medical procedure, while she was helpless under heavy sedation, [Griffin] sodomized her by placing his mouth in contact with her vagina, notwithstanding proof that this area was contaminated with fecal matter produced by the enema-like action of the colonoscope...
"In addition to a denial of any wrongdoing, [Griffin's] defense consisted of a frontal attack on the complainant's credibility by stressing her strong motive to concoct the charges. The complainant had been evicted from her apartment in July of 1991, and attributed her stomach and depression symptoms to the oppressive conduct of her landlord. Subsequently, she commenced a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against him for sexual assault...
"Obviously, these charges of deviate sexual conduct by a doctor upon a helpless patient would inevitably arouse a strong emotional repugnance, and it was essential that they be considered by the jury in a dispassionate manner free of prejudicial distraction. Unfortunately, the course deliberately chosen by the assistant district attorney prosecuting this case made that impossible."
[Replace the phrase 'by a doctor upon a helpless patient' with 'by an adult man upon a boy,' and the word 'jury' with 'bench trial judge,' and one gets a perfect description of ADA Peter Torncello's conduct in Nickel's case. (See Propensity/Who Cares? and Day One and Day Two annotated trial transcripts.)]
"Prior to [Griffin's] taking the stand...the Court held a Sandoval hearing outside the jury's presence. The prosecutor sought leave to cross-examine the doctor upon an alleged romantic relationship with a female patient ('AH') from March through July 1991...[T]he prosecutor sought to inquire whether...[Griffin] had 'masturbated in front of' the partially disrobed AH. While the trial court...had allowed a limited inquiry into the AH affair, it explicitly excluded any reference to masturbation as too inflammatory. The Court further directed that if the prosecutor thought that [Griffin], in answering, 'opened the door' beyond the limits set, she would be required to seek a ruling 'outside the presence of the jury...'
"Undeterred by these meticulous instructions...the prosecutor inquired of him as follows:
Q. Do you remember. . .at any point a woman in November of '91 coming into your office at Central Park West and that you took her shirt off and fondled her breasts?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. And you don't remember at any point masturbating?
"Defense counsel immediately moved for a mistrial, arguing at length that the masturbation question...cast a continuing pall over the courtroom. The trial court agreed that...the image of [Griffin] masturbating in front of a patient in the office would be 'something that the jury would remember.' Nonetheless, the motion was denied with a curative instruction to the jury.
"On appeal, the People are unpersuasive in minimizing the poisonous impact of the prosecutor's intentional misconduct. Not surprisingly, they point to the curative instruction given by the court to the jury in a futile attempt to 'unring the bell.' But as the trial judge herself acknowledged to the jurors about the masturbation question, 'I know the longer I talk about it the harder it is to put it out of your mind.' Simply put, this bell had tolled, ringing a sad curfew to the notion of a fair trial."
[In Nickel's case, the prosecutor 'tolled the "boylover" bell' fifteen times; and the 'NAMBLA' one an additional 15.]
"A final set of errors arose from the trial court's rulings unreasonably curtailing defense cross-examination of the complainant...When defendant sought to cross-examine the complainant [regarding] alleged perjury regarding her landlord-tenant case at an administrative hearing, prior meritless lawsuits by her and her [constrained] financial circumstances, these topics were precluded..."
[As is virtually always the case when a verdict has been overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct, particularly in the State of New York, this appellate decision does not name the prosecutor, thus reinforcing the notion that, whereas defendants are to be held accountable ad infinitum -- including for things they did not do -- prosecutors are to remain virtually immune from any meaningful accountability whatsoever.]
NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):
"Griffin rejected an offer from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to plead guilty to a misdemeanor sex offense in return for probation -- which would have cost him his license. Griffin asserted his innocence and passed a polygraph examination."
"Griffin, who had lost his physician's license in 1996 after conviction, went on trial for a second time in April 2000. The patient again testified and was cross-examined in depth about her finances and alleged false statements.
"Griffin again denied the sexual assault. The defense also presented evidence that the medication and sedatives the woman was given on the day of the colonoscopy can lead patients to experience sexual fantasies.
"On April 11, 2000, the jury acquitted Griffin."
