Queens

Law professors filed a grievance regarding Christopher Dooley’s serious misconduct while prosecuting Miguel Ramirez on behalf of the Queens District Attorney’s Office (QDAO).

In People v. Ramirez, the Appellate Division found that Dooley committed misconduct when he improperly elicited bolstering testimony from a detective. Generally excluded as hearsay, “bolstering” means the presentation of evidence at trial of a prior consistent statement intended to validate trial testimony.

The court also found that Dooley further “compounded” the issue in Ramirez by making “improper comments” in summation regarding the “complainant’s identification of the defendant.” The Appellate Division found Dooley’s misconduct so prejudicial that it vacated Mr. Ramirez’s conviction and ordered a new trial.

Despite the findings of misconduct noted in this grievance, as of the writing of this grievance, the New York Attorney Detail Report lists “Disciplinary History: No record of public discipline” for Dooley. This prosecutor’s behavior is far from justice.

Dooley’s misconduct in Queens was far from unique; serious misconduct at QDAO has been regularly reported for years.

Powerful positions require the highest accountability. We cannot reward prosecutors for breaking the rules.