Summary of the 440 Motion

Jack Carroll's 440.10 Motion: On October 12, 2004, Jack Carroll submitted to the Rensselaer County Court a 440.10 motion. This motion is not the same as an appeal to an appellate court, but it is similar in that it requests the verdict be overturned. Among other things, the motion argues that due to prosecutorial conduct, Jack Carroll did not receive a fair trial. Examples of the DA's actions during the trial that support the point made within the 440.10 can be seen on the Transgressions of a Prosecutor page. Or you can read the 440 Motion.

Rensselaer County DA's Reply to Jack Carroll's 440.10 Motion: On January 4, 2005, the office of the Rensselaer County District Attorney submitted its reply to Jack Carroll's 440.10 Motion. In her reply, the DA chose not to address her actions that led to the claims of prosecutorial misconduct that are argued by the 440 motion, opting instead to hide behind legal technicalities for reasons why the claim of prosecutorial misconduct is not valid. In other words, the DA does not argue that she said and did the things that are discussed in Carroll's motion, but argues that this is not the correct motion for raising those issues. Read the DA's reply.

Response to Rensselaer County DA's Reply to Jack Carroll's 440.10 Motion: On January 19, 2005, a legal brief responding to the DA's argument against Jack Carroll's 440.10 motion was submitted to the trial court. A determination on this 440 motion now rests in the hands of County Court Judge, Patrick McGrath. Read the Response.

Decision to Jack Carroll's 440.10 and 440.20 Motion: Jack Carroll's 440 Motion has been declined by Rensselaer County Judge Patrick McGrath. And while McGrath had the option of ruling "in the interest of justice," he chose to instead lean on procedural grounds as the basis for his decision. In this instance, procedural grounds is referring to the fact that much of what was raised in the motion can be supported by the trial transcript. And because a 440 motion is intended for new evidence and information not already on the trial record, McGrath denied the motion. Read McGrath's decision.