The unusual occurrence of a racketeering trial became even more conspicuous on its third day, when discontent surfaced from two defendants who voiced their inability to confront their accuser directly. Caught in this intricate judicial web are Carl Newton Jr., a man of 38, and Synike White, 32, who stand trial as supposed affiliates of the notorious Syracuse gang known as Uptown, according to prosecution statements in the indictment filed at Onondaga County Court.
The two men find themselves indicted under a statute of New York state law that mirrors the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act) law, an instrument scarcely utilized within the state’s legal proceedings. The origins of their case can be traced back to a homicide and an instance of attempted murder, marked for trial in December 2023. However, it abruptly concluded in a hung jury following allegations of jury manipulation.
During Thursday’s court proceedings, there was an anticipatory atmosphere as the prosecution and defense counsel for the accused were poised to concur that Donta Albert, the survivor of the foiled murder attempt, could not provide testimony due to his deteriorating mental and physical health. Yet, Newton adamantly rejected the notion of the missing victim from the trial, airing his objections in court.
In a forceful address to the court, Newton shared his ongoing predicament of several years of pre-trial incarceration, asserting that he retains the right to encounter his accuser directly. Advisedly against counsel, Newton shared his disquiet and disappointment with the justice system. ‘The system isn’t functioning as I believe it should,’ Newton expressed in the courtroom on Friday. ‘I can’t think of another way to phrase it.’
Following a succinct questioning session, the presiding judge expressed grave doubts about the victim’s capacity to deliver testimony. His apprehension was stemming from baffling responses of the victim when asked about the meaning of an oath. There was also the judge’s unease about a potential sympathy vote in favor of a gravely injured Albert if he were to appear before a jury, thereby negatively influencing the jurors’ perspective on Newton and White.
In his argument, Newton emphasized that the jurors are instructed by the judge not to let their sympathy towards victims cloud their judgement. He further pointed out Albert’s prior ability to take the stand before the grand jury, arguing that the same capacity should permit his testimony during the trial as well. White, espousing Newton’s line of reasoning, also expressed his desire to face his alleged victim.
The charges levelled against both men claim their attempt to assassinate Albert during an incident that occurred on the 200 block of Allen Street, dated July 28, 2021. Both the defense counsel were in concurrence with the judge that the potential testimony of Albert could introduce an unfavorable bias among the jury members against the accused.
The final verdict from the bench deemed that Albert would not bear witness. The ruling, aligning with legal precedents, affirmed that when a strategic decision of substantial clarity is at stake, the judge is prone to concur with defense attorneys rather than the objections raised by their respective clients.
In lieu of Albert’s testimony, the district attorney read out an agreed statement, clarifying to the jury that Albert was unfit to testify due to his prevailing health considerations. The statement further elucidated that the critically injured Albert was unable to identify his assailant on the day of the fateful incident.