Queens Judge Allows Questionable Evidence, Observers Say

KEW GARDENS, QUEENS — A Queens Supreme Court judge has a pattern of allowing questionable evidence and testimony in criminal cases, according to a new report.

An appeals court has reversed decisions by Queens Supreme Court Justice Steven Paynter a dozen times since 2013, the New York Law Journal found. Each time, the appellate court decided Paynter had allowed police and prosecutors to use evidence that should have been inadmissible.

The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division reversed just under four percent of the decisions it reviewed last year, according to the New York Law Journal. Since 2013, the appeals court reviewed 37 of Paynter's decisions on whether to admit or suppress evidence and reversed 12 of them — a reversal rate of nearly a third.

In one case, the appellate court tossed a drug conviction because Paynter had admitted "incredible" police statements that "strain credulity," the Law Journal reported. In another instance, the judge allowed evidence seized without a warrant.

A spokesman for the Office of Court Administration said Paynter has a "unique role" because he "almost exclusively" handles these evidence-suppression hearings.

"Active judges that hear a lot of cases get appealed," the spokesman, Lucian Chalfen, told the Law Journal.

But attorneys and law professors told the Law Journal they believe Paynter, who previously worked in the Queens DA's office, is biased in favor of law enforcement.

Paynter ruled against the criminal defendant in all but one of those cases, the Law Journal found.

"He’s a suppression-denial machine," an attorney told the Law Journal of the judge's pattern of declining to suppress evidence and testimony.

"Appearing before him is not a pleasant experience," the lawyer added. "You feel like you’ve lost before you entered the courtroom."

Read the full story in the New York Law Journal.