Deborah Clarke got into trouble because she refused to stop using her cell phone while she was in the Queens County Criminal Courthouse. To make matters worse, as she was being taken into custody, she reportedly refused to be handcuffed and attempted to punch a court officer.
After she was convicted of "resisting arrest and disorderly conduct," Deborah challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence used against her and the Appellate Term, Second Department, thought that the lady had "engaged in disorderly conduct beyond a reasonable doubt." It also didn't find any irregularity in the underlying paperwork which would have rendered the "resisting arrest" charge legally deficient.
Finally, the appellate court didn't think Deborah had been deprived of the "effective assistance of counsel," since her attorney successfully discredited the credibility of the witnesses testifying against her, leading to an acquittal on several charges. (Counsel's failure to properly introduce her cell phone records into evidence wasn't viewed as prejudicial nor rendered the representation "ineffective.")
Did she go from one cell to another?
To view a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: People v Clarke (Deborah)