Kinsman v. Rawson

COUNTY OF NEW YORK ONE HOGAN PLACE New York, N. Y. 10013 Sam (212) 335-9000 tea. ES: Se ALVIN L. BRAGG, JR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY May 3, 2022 BY ECF The Honorable Paul G. Gardephe Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Kinsman v. Rawson, 1:22-cv-03338-PGG-SDA Dear Judge Gardephe: I represent respondent Boyce Rawson, Supreintendant of Bare Hill Correctional Facility, in the above-captioned habeas corpus case. I request that this matter be transferred to Judge Colleen McMahon. SDNY Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges (hereafter, the “Rules’’), Rule 13(b)(3). Judge McMahon has already been assigned to preside over Hare v. Rockwood, 1:22-cv-03190CM-KHP, a related habeas matter with a lower docket number. The instant habeas petition and Hare v. Rockwood pertain to the same August 2019 criminal trial, which was held before Justice Mark Dwyer in Supreme Coutt, New York County. Following that trial, the jury convicted petitioner John Kinsman and his jointly-tried codefendant Maxwell Hare of several of the same crimes; their convictions pertained to the same underlying gang assault; and on direct appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed Kinsman and Hate’s convictions in the same, consolidated opinion. People v. Kinsman, 191 A.D.3d 539 , 53941 (1st Dept. 2021). Moreover, Kinsman and Hare filed a “joint memorandum” of law in connection with each of their habeas petitions, which they acknowledge raises the “same” issues “for both Peititoner John Kinsman and Maxwell Hare” (ECF, no. 4). Indeed, almost all of the factual recitations and legal arguments in Kinsman’s memorandum of law (ECF, no. 4) duplicate, word for word, the memorandum of law that Hare already submitted to Judge McMahon. Petitioner’s Memorandum of Law, Hare v. Rockwood, 1:22-cv-03190-CM-KHP (SDNY Apr. 20, 2022). DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF NEW YORK The Honorable Paul G. Gardephe 2 May 3, 2022 Plainly, these two habeas matters are related to one another. They “concern the same ... parties,” “transactions,” and “events.” Rule 13(a)(1)(A). There is ample “factual overlap.” Rule 13(a)(1)(B). And, “absent a determination of relatedness there would be a substantial duplication” of effort between Your Honor and Judge McMahon, particularly because Kinsman and Hare filed identical memoranda of law that pertain to the same criminal trial. Rule 13(a)(1)(C). Thus, respondent respectfully submits that the “interests of justice and efficiency” would be best served if these two petitions were heard together. Rule 13(a)(1). Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Om Assistant District Attorney (212) 335-9337 hughesj@dany.nyc.gov cc: Ronald Paul Hart 225 Broadway, Suite 192 New York, NY 10007 ronaldphartesq@gmail.com Prantzgermain Bernadin 211 East 43rd Street, Suite 743 New York, NY 10017-4707 ebernadin@bernadinlaw.com MEMO ENDORSED: The application is denied. SO ORDERED. Ou 2 Anodphe Paul G. Gardephe United States District Judge Dated: September 26, 2022