Convicted of murder and attempted murder in the second degree, and assault in the first degree, E. Page tried to vacate the outcome based on newly discovered evidence. And when the County Court of Schenectady denied that request, the guy appealed.
Page argued that a ballistic report--that wasn't introduced at his trial--would have rebutted the government's claim that he shot two victims. But the Appellate Division, Third Department, interpreted the same report to mean that there wasn't enough "microscopic detail" to help determine the issue.
As for the production of a new witness--who now claimed to have seen another person selling drugs and that Page wasn't even "in the area" when the shootings occurred--the AD3 thought that information was "material to the ultimate issue of [Page's] guilt or innocence," and that a hearing was necessary to determine its "probative value" and "probable effect on the verdict."
That sure was a Page turner.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. Page