People v Winter
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 1, 2009
Supreme Court, Kings County
People of the State of New York
against
Jamal Winter, Defendant.
5037/2008
James Pepe, Esq.
For the Defendant
Timothy Gough, Esq.
Asst. District Attorney
For the People
Guy J. Mangano, J.
The defendant is charged with one count of Murder in the First Degree and two counts of
Murder in the Second Degree.A Dunaway/Mapp/Wade/Huntley hearing was ordered and held.
The People called two witnesses: New York City Police Detectives Timothy O'Brien and Elson
Winchester. The defendant testified on his own behalf.
FINDINGS OF
FACT
This Court finds the People's witnesses to be credible.
On May 15, 2008, Detective Timothy O'Brien was assigned to assist in the
investigation of the death of Kyungsoo Woo, which occurred at 1623 10th Avenue, Kings
County. Detective O'Brien arrived at the scene, a dry cleaning establishment, and found the
victim in the rear of the location. The detective interviewed several witnesses who observed a
black male, in his early 20's, medium build, and approximately 5 foot 7 inches, standing in front
of the dry cleaning store on the afternoon of May 14, 2008. The witnesses also described the man
as wearing either a do-rag and/or a baseball cap, and some described him as wearing a knapsack
around his shoulders.
Besides the body of the deceased, the detective recovered a black knapsack from
behind the front counter, similar to the bag described by some witnesses. Also recovered was a
plastic bottle of ammonia and cleaning gloves. All items recovered were vouchered and sent for
police testing. It was also learned that a white Honda Accord, which belonged to the deceased,
was missing, and that one of the witnesses observed the person fitting the description leave the
store and get into a white Honda.
Approximately one day later, Detective O'Brien received results from the police
laboratory that a fingerprint on the plastic bottle matched the fingerprint of a Jamal Winter, an
individual on the fingerprint database. With the fingerprint match, the detective was able to
recover all information known to the police about Jamal Winter, including a physical description
which was close to the description provided by the witnesses who gave statements to police. The
police also learned Mr. [*2]Winter's address as being twelve to
fifteen blocks from the site of the murder.
With this information, the detective and other police canvassed the area of Jamal
Winter's last known address. On May 18, 2008, Detective O'Brien was driving on 15th Street,
between 5th and 6th Avenues, and observed the deceased's white Honda. While the license plates
did not match the vehicle's registration, the Vehicle Identification Number matched. Jamal
Winter's address known to the police was on 14th Street, between 5th and 6th Avenues,
approximately one block away. Another police vehicle was canvassing the area and observed an
individual who matched Jamal Winter's photograph walking towards the parked white Honda
Accord. Detective O'Brien's vehicle pulled up on Jamal Winter and stopped him. Jamal Winter
identified himself when asked by Detective O'Brien. The detective recovered an automobile key
that matched the parked white Honda and defendant was arrested and transported to the 72nd
Precinct.
Once at the police station, Detective O'Brien prepared a lineup with defendant and
five fillers. The detective also contacted five witnesses to come to the 72nd Precinct. The
witnesses arrived at the precinct and were taken to the detective's offices without coming into
contact with each other or any of the lineup participants. The defendant was in a closed interview
room and could not be scene by any of the witnesses, and the fillers remained in the rear of the
precinct until all the witnesses arrived. Detective O'Brien informed each of the witnesses
separately that they would be viewing a lineup and whether they recognize any of the members
of the lineup. Defendant chose position four. All lineup participants wore a hat and glasses.
Beginning at 4:00 p.m., the witnesses began viewing the lineup. Four of the five witnesses
picked Jamal Winter as the individual they observed in and around the dry cleaning
establishment on May 14, 2008. Four photographs of the lineup were taken and admitted into
evidence.
Earlier that day, at approximately noon, Detective Elson Winchester read defendant
his Miranda rights from a pre-printed sheet of paper containing six questions. Defendant
responded that he understood each question and memorialized his affirmative answer by writing
the word "yes" and his initials at the end of each question. Defendant also signed the Miranda
Sheet. After some questioning, defendant told the detective that he and a friend went to the dry
cleaning establishment "to get this money." According to defendant's statement, the friend
committed the murder and defendant only took money. The friend initially took the white Honda
but parked it near defendant's house because the friend was going away for a while. The
statement ended at approximately 1:00 p.m.
After the lineup procedure, Detective Winchester had another occasion to speak with
defendant at approximately 8:00 p.m. Defendant was reminded of his Miranda rights once again
and was asked to write the oral statement previously given. Defendant asked that the detective
write the statement and defendant proceeded to dictate the statement and the detective wrote it
down word for word. When asked to sign the statement, defendant refused.
Defendant then took the stand and refuted everything stated by the two police
detectives.
CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
DUNAWAY/MAPP ISSUE
Regarding the propriety of the warrantless arrest, the police had
probable cause to arrest defendant based upon the fact that his fingerprints were found on a
bottle of ammonia found at the scene of the murder (see People v Catti, 19 AD3d 703, lv denied 5 NY3d 827;
see also People v [*3]Snipes, 289 Ad2d 116, lv denied 98
NY2d 655). As for the recovery of physical evidence, the keys to the victim's vehicle obtained
from defendant's person were the products of a search incident to a lawful arrest (see People
v Phillips, 260 AD2d 582, lv denied 93 NY2d 1025; People v Williams, 236
AD2d 642, appeal denied 90 NY2d 866; People v Decayette, 217 AD2d 557,
appeal denied 86 NY2d 841).
HUNTLEY
ISSUE
As for the admissibility of defendant's
statements made at the precinct, the record is clear that defendant answered in the affirmative as
to whether he understood the Miranda Warnings read from a pre-printed document detailing the
rights of a defendant in custody. Further, defendant initialed each of the six sentences and also
signed his name on the page. Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds that
defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before making the
statement (see People v Washington, 155 AD2d 635, appeal denied 75 NY2d
925; see also People v Davis, 55 NY2d 731). The statements will therefore be admissible
at trial.
WADE
ISSUES
It is well settled that the People have the
burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of
suggestiveness of the pretrial identification procedure while defendant bears the ultimate burden
of proof to establish that a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive (see,
People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361; People v Jackson, 108 AD2d 757).
With regard to the lineup, "corporal lineups, properly conducted, generally provide a
reliable pretrial identification procedure and are properly admitted unless it is shown that some
undue suggestiveness attached to the procedure" (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335,
cert denied 498 US 833). To evaluate the fairness of the lineup, some of the factors to be
considered by the Court are the "physical characteristics of the subject such as skin color, height,
weight, clothing, hairstyle, age, and whether the subject is clean-shaven or has facial hair"
(People v Gonzalez, 173 AD2d 48, 56, appeal denied 79 NY2d 1001). Further,
while the fillers must be sufficiently similar to the defendant in appearance so as not to single out
defendant, there is no requirement that all the members of the lineup be nearly identical in
appearance (see People v Chipp, supra; see also People v Poey, 260
AD2d 411, lv denied 93 NY2d 928; People v Longshore, 249 AD2d 565, lv
denied 92 NY2d 900; People v Veeney, 215 AD2d 605, appeal denied 86
NY2d 875).
An inspection of a photograph of the lineup confirms the fact that the lineup
participants were sufficiently similar to the defendant in appearance so that he was not singled
out for identification (see People v Miranda, 265 AD2d 507, lv denied 94 NY2d
923; People v Lopez, 209 AD2d 442, appeal denied 85 NY2d 911; People v
Baptiste, 201 AD2d 659). Moreover, this Court finds that the witnesses was summoned to
the police precinct by the detective investigating the case and taken to an office while defendant
and the five fillers were placed in separate areas of the building. Since the evidence established
that the witnesses did not come into contact with or see the lineup participants prior to the
viewing, there is nothing to suggest that the lineup was tainted in any manner (see People v
Bradley, 268 AD2d 591, lv denied 95 NY2d 832; People v Gelzer, 224
AD2d 443, appeal denied 88 NY2d 847).
This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.
[*4]
__________________________________
HON. GUY J. MANGANO, JR.
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.