After he was convicted of sex trafficking and promoting prostitution, Sahim L. appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department.
Sahim took issue with the confiscation of his pen during summations. Apparently, a court officer detected some “agitation” on Sahim’s part--and issued the directive as a “security measure.” Sahim argued that act deprived him of his rights to self-representation and a fair trial.
On its review of the record, the AD1 noted no basis for reversal given the “overwhelming evidence of guilt” and the “minimal prejudice.”
Was he penned in?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division’s decision, please use this link: People v. L.