## Facts

- Derek Andrades had a sexual relationship with Magalie Nieves and became enraged after hearing rumors that she had HIV.
- With 14-year-old Ericka Cruz’s assistance, Andrades fought with Nieves and later lured her to an isolated area.
- Andrades choked Nieves with a bandana, and he and Cruz stabbed her, killing her.
- Cruz was arrested first and confessed; Andrades was arrested the next day and charged including second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter.
- After receiving Miranda warnings, Andrades gave written and videotaped statements admitting he acted in concert with Cruz to kill Nieves.
- Andrades moved to suppress his confessions, triggering a Huntley hearing on voluntariness.
- Before the hearing, defense counsel sought to withdraw due to an “ethical conflict” but declined to explain further; the court denied withdrawal.
- During the hearing (outside Andrades’s presence), counsel stated Andrades intended to testify, counsel had warned him about truthful versus untruthful testimony, and counsel expected narrative testimony.
- Andrades testified largely in narrative form, claiming lack of memory and that his confessions were untrue or merely repeated Cruz’s version.
- The court found Andrades not credible and denied suppression; a jury later convicted him of second-degree murder, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether defense counsel’s disclosure to the judge at a Huntley hearing—suggesting anticipated false testimony and indicating narrative testimony—deprived the defendant of a fair hearing or effective assistance of counsel.
2. Whether the defendant’s absence from the colloquy about counsel’s ethical conflict violated the defendant’s right to be present at material stages of the proceeding.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- Counsel’s disclosure, though open to an inference of anticipated perjury, did not deny a fair hearing or effective assistance at the Huntley hearing where the judge was fact-finder.
- The defendant had no right to be present for the ethical-conflict colloquy because it concerned legal and ethical matters not requiring his participation.

## Legal Principles

- Defense counsel may alert the court to an ethical conflict involving anticipated perjury, even when the court is the fact-finder at a suppression hearing, without necessarily rendering assistance ineffective or the proceeding unfair.
- Counsel may permit a defendant to testify in narrative form to avoid facilitating testimony counsel believes to be false, while still allowing the defendant to place an account on the record.
- A defendant’s right to be present does not extend to sidebars or in-chambers discussions focused on legal or ethical issues where the defendant’s input would not affect the fairness of the proceeding.

## Conclusion

The court held that counsel’s limited disclosure and use of narrative testimony to manage anticipated perjury did not compromise the fairness or constitutional adequacy of a Huntley hearing before a judge, and that the defendant’s absence from the ethical-conflict discussion did not violate the right to be present at material stages.


People v. Andrades, 828 N.E.2d 599 (N.Y. 2005)