But the appellate court on Wednesday ruled that Johnson erred in that assessment because the informant did not testify during the trial and could not be considered a key witness.
They also agreed with Assistant District Attorney Christopher Blira-Koessler, who argued prosecutors had other evidence placing Breland at the scene of the Nov. 13 crime, including statements Breland made during his arrest and witness identification. Blira-Koessler argued that because the two robberies had many distinct differences, a spillover argument doesn’t hold water.
“In reality, these two sets of crimes, other than being generalized home invasions, couldn’t be more different in terms of place, time, witnesses, defenses, the involvement of the [confidential informant],” Blira-Koessler said during oral arguments. “What we do have is a very strong ID. What we do have is two statements from Mr. Breland, one of which he confirmed at trial. And what we do have are two cases that could not be more dissimilar. That’s why there is no spillover, and that’s why the lower court’s decision should be reversed.”
The appellate court ultimately found there was no “reasonable possibility” that Breland’s wrongful conviction for one robbery could have had a spillover effect on the jury’s verdict for the other robbery. As such, it granted the Queens DA’s appeal.
A spokesperson for the Queens DA office said the office was “reviewing the decision.”
Breland now maintains his felon status, and the legal fight continues. Speaking with the Eagle, Breland’s attorney, Justin Bonus, said he was preparing for the opinion issued last week but was still let down.
“I’m disappointed with the decision,” Bonus told the Eagle. “There’s no question in my belief that Chad is innocent of both [robberies].”
A new trial and eventual verdict would only determine if Breland keeps his felon status. He has already served his original sentence, and would remain free even if a new jury convicted him again.
Wednesday’s decision is not the end of Breland’s legal fight. While the appellate court didn’t grant Breland a new trial, it did remit his case back to Queens Supreme Court to address other outstanding legal issues.
When Bonus first filed a motion to overturn Breland’s conviction back in 2022, he argued that newly discovered evidence regarding Breland’s arrest required a new trial. He also argued that the prosecution withheld at the time evidence that could have been favorable to Breland’s case, requiring the conviction to be vacated.
Johnson did not make a ruling on those issues in her original decision, as she already ruled for a new trial because of the prejudice spillover issue. The appellate court ordered a new hearing to take place to address those issues, among others, and the outcome could have significant effect on the rest of the case.
Bonus said he was currently considering whether to appeal the case to the Court of Appeals.