A pivotal motion tests custodial limits and silent recordings in a high-profile prison death case.
The judge’s decision to delay a ruling in the Nicholas Anzalone suppression hearing could shape the Robert Brooks case before a jury ever hears it. At issue is whether statements captured during a December 13 search of Anzalone’s home—without Miranda warnings and on a privately owned audio recorder—should be kept from the jury. Prosecutors argue the interaction was brief and noncustodial; the defense says the setting and secret recording crossed the line. The outcome will determine what evidence survives to trial in one of New York’s most scrutinized prison-death prosecutions.
Context: The Brooks Case and Anzalone’s Role
Robert Brooks, a 43-year-old inmate at Marcy Correctional Facility, died on December 10, 2024, following a brutal beating while in restraints inside a medical examination room. The autopsy ruled his death a homicide by asphyxia and blunt-force trauma. Fifteen corrections officers, including Nicholas Anzalone, face charges ranging from second-degree murder to tampering with evidence. Video from body-worn cameras showed the assault, though crucial footage lacked audio. Governor Kathy Hochul ordered the firing of multiple officers, and Attorney General Letitia James released what footage she could. Anzalone, charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, and evidence tampering, returned to Oneida County Court on August 15, 2025, to challenge statements made during a home search.
Inside the Suppression Hearing
Investigator Casey’s Testimony
Senior Investigator William Casey of the New York State Police testified that he arrived at Anzalone’s father’s home on December 13, 2024, to execute a valid search warrant seeking Anzalone’s corrections uniform. Casey said no weapons were drawn, no one was placed under arrest, and the conversation remained polite. “No one asked about Brooks’ death,” Casey said, noting that his queries focused solely on property access. He stressed that Anzalone’s movements were unconstrained and that investigators did not question him about the assault.
Defense’s Challenge on Recording and Consent
Defense attorney Nick Evanovich drilled into Casey’s use of a privately owned audio recorder, which captured Anzalone’s remarks without notice to him or his family. Casey acknowledged he did not inform anyone he was recording and that background conversations could have been picked up inadvertently. “That undisclosed recording undermines voluntariness,” Evanovich argued, pressing that the presence of multiple armed officers in Anzalone’s home created a coercive environment akin to custody. Evanovich also highlighted that Casey had viewed Brooks’s assault video just one day before the search, suggesting investigators may have aimed to elicit incriminating statements.
Legal Framework: Custody, Interrogation, and Consent in New York
Defining Custodial Interrogation
Miranda warnings apply only when a suspect is both in custody and subject to interrogation. Custody depends on whether a reasonable person would believe they were free to leave. Factors include display of weapons, physical restraint, and the tone of questioning. Interrogation covers express questioning and its functional equivalent—any police conduct likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Voluntariness of Consent and Scope of Warrant
While a warrant authorizes a search of specified locations, courts assess voluntariness when officers seek broader access. Under CPL § 710.20, consent must be the product of free will. Coercive tactics, prolonged police presence, or implied threats can render consent involuntary and taint any evidence obtained.
One-Party Consent and Officer Recordings
New York permits one-party consent for recordings under CPLR § 4506. Officers may lawfully record encounters if one party—here, the officer—agrees. The admissibility question shifts to whether the underlying interaction violated constitutional limits, such as an unrecognized custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings.
Implications of the Pending Ruling
A ruling in favor of suppression would bar the prosecution from using recorded statements to show Anzalone’s knowledge of evidence locations or his demeanour during the search. Denial would allow jurors to hear those remarks, potentially strengthening the state’s narrative of a voluntary, noncustodial encounter. The decision will also offer guidance on how New York courts apply custody and consent standards in residential searches.
Next Steps in the Brooks Prosecution
A pre-trial conference is set for September 22, 2025, with jury selection scheduled to begin October 6. Prosecutors may adjust their strategy based on the suppression outcome, and defense counsel could leverage the ruling in plea negotiations. The suppression decision will arrive before both sides finalize witness lists and trial exhibits.
Call to Action
The judge’s reserved decision in the Nicholas Anzalone suppression hearing will shape the evidence jury members can consider in the Robert Brooks case. Observers should follow the ruling closely to understand how custodial and consent boundaries apply in home-search scenarios. Stay informed by tuning into local court coverage and supporting measures that improve transparency, such as reliable audio on body-worn cameras and clear policies for recording officer interactions.
Hurricane Erin’s Early Cat 5 Power Sparks Fall-Like Chill in NY
