CPL 190.50(5)(a) requires that upon a request from a defendant to appear
before the grand jury, the district attorney must notify the defendant or
his attorney of the prospective or pending grand jury proceeding and must "
accord the defendant a reasonable time to exercise his right to appear as a
witness therein." In People v Shemesh ( __ NY3d __ [9/16/08]) the Court of Appeals affirmed a dismissal of an indictment, with leave to represent, because there was record support for the lower courts findings that the district attorney had failed to accord the defendant reasonable time to exercise his right to appear as a witness before the grand jury. The facts in Shemesh, which are set forth in the 3-2 decision of the Appellate Division, First Department at 2008 NY Slip Op 00208,51 AD3d 239, reveal that the district attorney had provided the defendant with 4 possible dates to testify, but that the defendant could not testify on any of those dates due to either a change in counsel (not for the purpose of being deliberately dilatory) or because it would conflict with his observance of a religious holiday. The trial court and the majority of the Appellate Division held that merely providing a defendant with four possible dates to testify was unreasonable where the defendant had timely communicated good reasons that he was unable to testify on those dates and that he was able to testify on a different date during the term of the grand jury. The Court of Appeals had previously held in People v Sawyer (96 NY2d 815, 816 [2001]) that the "concept of reasonableness is flexible and must be applied to the particular facts of a case known at the time." Applying Sawyer, the Appellate Division held that "[a] flexible application of the concept of reasonableness to the particular facts...cuts in favor of defendant..."
The affirmance of this holding by the Court of Appeals should provide
valuable support for attorneys seeking to challenge the limited times
offered by a district attorney to their clients to testify at the grand
jury as being unreasonable.
Referrals to New York State attorneys. The Lawyer Referral and Information Service is a public service of the New York State Bar Association that provides ...
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Please see the article below for the improper political intervention of the Velella family with Family Court Judge David Klein: case of T...
-
The need to renew previously made requests has been in the news recently with lots of reminders that if you don't a request to be on the...
-
re-posted from Parentadvocates.org LINK The subtitle of the article on the July 29, 2012 New York Post: "Judges' pals cashing in...
-
Party Must Prevail on All Issues to Be Awarded Counsel Fee Pursuant to Agreement Provision In Matter of Bederman v Bederman, --- N.Y.S.2d --...
-
Be sure to read our # Funny # New # Blog "Law And Humor" filled with entertainment from the legal world! http:// lawandhumorny....
-
Judge Nelson Roman, Deputy Mayor Carol Robles-Roman, Is Approved For Seat in Southern District CourtSenate Committee Approves Roman for Southern District By Mike Paquette New York Law Journal March 4, 2013 LINK Cover Story: Hispanic Power ...
-
In 2007, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the longstanding Appellate Division case law "that a carrier's failure to seek verificatio...
-
Matter of Koeppel 2011 NY Slip Op 51709(U) Judge Keistin Booth Glen Decided on January 19, 2011 Sur Ct, New York County Glen, J. Published b...
-
Юридический ликбез: в каких случаях имеет смысл создавать Отзывные Трасты Будучи адвокатом , специализирующимся на вопросах создания Трастов...
-
The story about Scott Bloch and his disdain for the public he was supposed to serve is not just judicial corruption, but public service gone...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét