A Queens man convicted of burglary, assault and bail jumping nearly a decade ago is getting a new trial after an appeals court found that the judge who presided over his case acted less like a neutral arbiter and more like a member of the prosecution. Wilson Chimborazo was sentenced to 17 years behind bars following his 2017 trial, but that conviction has now been thrown out over how the judge handled witness questioning.
The Appellate Division, Second Department ruled that Chimborazo's right to a fair trial was violated by Judge Ronald Hollie, who oversaw the case, according to the Queens Daily Eagle. The court found that Hollie improperly interfered in the burglary trial, interjecting multiple times while Chimborazo's attorney questioned witnesses in a way that created the impression he was advocating for the prosecution. Judges, the appeals panel said, created an appearance that Hollie had acted too much like a member of the prosecution rather than a detached referee.
As a result, the appeals court ordered a new trial before a different justice, saying it was required because the court excessively and prejudicially questioned witnesses during the original proceeding. The panel did reject one part of Chimborazo's appeal, however, declining to find that his convictions were supported by legally insufficient evidence. The court also did not rule on a separate argument that his 17-year sentence was excessive, leaving that question unresolved.
Attorney Says Judge's Interjections Tilted the Trial
Sam Feldman, a senior attorney with Appellate Advocates, told the appeals panel during a court appearance last month that Hollie's trial interjections were excessive. Feldman argued that the judge's questions prevented defense counsel from pursuing coherent questioning and from impeaching prosecution witnesses effectively, according to the same court appearance cited by the Eagle. He also told the panel that the jury could have perceived the court as favoring the prosecution throughout the trial.
During the 2017 proceeding, Chimborazo's attorney had argued that his client's intoxication explained his conduct while questioning a witness. The newspaper's report notes that Hollie himself asked a witness whether they knew the defendant was intoxicated or had only smelled alcohol on him — one of 167 questions the judge asked over the course of the trial. Feldman contended that volume of questioning amounted to the court stepping into an advocate's role rather than that of a neutral judge, and said the interference denied Chimborazo his constitutional right to a fair trial.
Prosecutors Defended the Judge's Conduct
Nicholas Isaacson, an attorney with Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz's office, offered a different account of Hollie's conduct during the same September court appearance. Isaacson told the appeals judges that Hollie's remarks were intended to clarify testimony rather than to steer the jury toward a particular outcome. The Queens District Attorney's office did not respond to a request for comment on the ruling, per the Eagle's reporting.
Chimborazo could face a new sentence if he is convicted again at the retrial, though no date or location for proceedings has been disclosed. The appellate ruling leaves unresolved questions about what charges prosecutors will pursue and what Chimborazo's custody status will be moving forward.
A Pattern Beyond One Courtroom
Chimborazo's case is not an isolated finding. The Queens Daily Eagle reported that the Appellate Division, Second Department has made similar rulings in at least eight cases that were overseen by Hollie. In one such case from 2020, the appeals court made a comparable ruling involving Wilfridy Martinez, who was tried in 2016 for attempted assault after being arrested a year earlier for stabbing a man outside a bar in Jackson Heights.
Court filings from the New York State Unified Court System, Appellate Division, Second Department show the panel separately considered an appeal from a Queens County judgment, also rendered by Hollie, in a 2016 attempted assault conviction. In a related decision, the same appellate court described the kind of conduct that can deprive a defendant of a fair trial: a judge repeatedly and flagrantly intervening in the questioning of witnesses in a manner that conveys the appearance of serving as an advocate, according to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
Hollie, a Queens native, began serving as a Queens civil court judge in 1998 before being elected to the state Supreme Court in 2000, where he served for roughly two decades. He retired from the bench in 2020 and died in 2022, meaning the judge at the center of the ruling will not face any further proceedings tied to the case.
