People v. Caminito
| Citation | 4 A.D.2d 697,163 N.Y.S.2d 699 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Santo CAMINITO, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 17 June 1957 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Maurice Edelbaum, New York City, for respondent, Frederick S. Abrams, New York City, on the brief.
William I. Siegel, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, MURPHY, UGHETTA and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal from an order of the County Court, Kings County, granting respondent's motion to dismiss, for insufficiency of proof before the Grand Jury, an indictment filed on May 15, 1942 charging him with murder in the first degree.
Order reversed on the law, motion denied, and respondent remanded to the County Court, Kings County, for further proceedings as indicated herein.
Respondent was remanded by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York for such other and further proceedings as justice might require upon the outstanding indictment. As it is conceivable, however unlikely, that on a new trial proof independent of respondent's confessions may be adduced which will be sufficient to warrant his conviction, there should be a new trial (cf. People v. Valletutti, 297 N.Y. 226, 78 N.E.2d 485). The proof before the Grand Jury was sufficient. The indictment, therefore, is not subject to dismissal for insufficiency of proof before that body, whatever the defense may offer at the new trial (People v. Donahue, 309 N.Y. 6, 7, 127 N.E.2d 725, 726). It should be noted that upon the new trial of the respondent, as well as of his codefendant, Bonino, respondent's confessions must be excluded, irrespective of any proof which might otherwise be adduced to show that such confessions had, in fact, been voluntary (People v. Bonino, 1 N.Y.2d 752, 152 N.Y.S.2d 298; cf. People v. Rudish, 294 N.Y. 500, 63 N.E.2d 77).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Fay
...coercion sic confessions in 1942. The obtaining of new evidence would appear at this late date impossible. See People v. Caminito, 4 A.D.2d 697, 163 N.Y.S. 2d 699." 183 F.Supp. at 227 & n. The coincidence of these factors: the undisputed violation of a significant constitutional right, the ......
-
Caminito v. City of New York
...that irrespective of the inadmissibility of the confession at the trial, the indictment was based on sufficient proof (People v. Caminito, 4 A.D.2d 697, 163 N.Y.S.2d 699). The Appellate Division, in reversing, stated (p. 698, 163 N.Y.S.2d pp. 'As it is conceivable, however unlikely, that on......
-
United States v. Fay
...unavailable coercion confessions in 1942. The obtaining of new evidence would appear at this late date impossible. See People v. Caminito, 4 A.D.2d 697, 163 N.Y.S.2d 699. ...
-
Caminito v. City of New York
...subsequent motion to dismiss the indictment was granted, but on appeal the order of dismissal was reversed and the motion denied (4 A.D.2d 697, 163 N.Y.S.2d 699, affd. 3 N.Y.2d 596, 170 N.Y.S.2d 799, 148 N.E.2d 139). However, the indictment was subsequently dismissed on May 1, 1963 on the P......