⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The New York Court of Appeals hears oral argument in People versus Fernandez. This is the state's highest court, where a panel of judges reviews whether Andre Fernandez received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The central legal issue is whether a defense attorney provided constitutionally adequate representation when he failed to investigate his client's extensive history of serious mental illness and substance abuse, despite being on notice of those conditions from multiple sources. Fernandez walked into a police station and confessed to two homicides. At trial, his lawyer argued that Fernandez had been promised immunity and compensation, a claim the prosecution denied. The confession was admitted, and Fernandez was convicted. Years later, in post-conviction proceedings, it emerged that Fernandez had a decades-long history of psychiatric hospitalizations, had been found by evaluators in a prior Florida case to meet the criteria for not guilty by reason of insanity, and suffered from schizoaffective disorder and heroin addiction. Trial counsel had never sought those records or consulted a mental health expert. The question before the Court of Appeals is whether that failure to investigate, despite red flags visible in the confession video and in the client's own statements, fell below the constitutional floor of effective assistance.

People v Fernandez (Andre) (No. 61) — New York Court of Appeals, argued May 21, 2026.