In re Cooper
| Decision Date | 08 November 1941 |
| Citation | 127 N.J.L. 312,22 A.2d 532 |
| Parties | In re COOPER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
In the matter of summons directed to Louis Cooper to attend and testify in a criminal prosecution pending in the County Court, Part II, of the County of Kings, State of New York. On motion for a writ of certiorari.
Motion denied.
Argued before Justice HEHER at chambers.
Milton, McNulty & Augelli, of Jersey City, for the motion.
Harold Simandl, of Newark, and J. Bertram Wegman, of New York City, opposed.
This is an application by the cited witness for a writ of certiorari to review the issuance by Common Pleas Judge Davidson, at the instance of a defendant (one Buchalter), of a summons commanding him to appear and testify in the trial of the cause of People vs. Louis Buchalter, et al., in the County Court, Part II, of the County of Kings, in the State of New York, a criminal prosecution now in process of trial, in the exercise of what was conceived to be authority conferred by Ch. 88 of the Laws of 1941 ); and the inquiry is whether a fairly debatable question is raised. I find none such.
It is said that the statute is unconstitutional, in that "it would permit of an unlawful and oppressive seizure of the witness."
The act is not oppressive in the legal sense, i. e. as permitting an unlawful deprivation of the individual's liberty. It is a prerequisite to the issuance of the summons that there be a determination that that course "will not cause undue hardship to the witness," and that the laws of the State in which the prosecution is pending, and of any other State through which the witness may be required to pass by ordinary course of travel, "will give to him protection from arrest and the service of civil and criminal process." Provision is made for the tender of mileage at a reasonable rate and a daily allowance as well.
This is but an adaptation of the federal procedure to state sovereignties inter se, amply conditioned against abuse of the process—to such only as shall enter into the like reciprocal arrangement for the modification of jurisdictional restraints common to the states—a device that indubitably serves an essential public interest.
Secondly, it is urged that the act applies only to witnesses sought by the state, and that the defendant is left to the old procedure by depositions. Neither the title nor the body of the act is so limited. While the primary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhode Island Grand Jury Subpoena, Matter of
...in an out-of-State certificate provides sufficient evidence to support a finding of materiality by a local judge. See In re Cooper, 127 N.J.L. 312, 22 A.2d 532 (1941); Ex parte Armes, 582 S.W.2d 434, 439 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). Accord Epstein v. New York, 157 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.19......
-
Application Of Marino.
...of this program has been uniformly upheld by repeated decisions. As to the Uniform Act for the Rendition of Witnesses, see In re Cooper, 127 N.J.L. 312, 22 A.2d 532; as to the Uniform Extradition Act, see Culbertson v. Sweeney, 70 Ohio App. 344, 44 N.E.2d 807; Id., 140 Ohio St. 426, 45 N.E.......
-
State of Cal. for Los Angeles County, Grand Jury Investigation, In re
...be delivered to the requesting State. See e.g. Epstein v. People of State of New York, 157 So.2d 705 (Fla.App.1963); In re Cooper, 127 N.J.L. 312, 22 A.2d 532 (1941); Superior Court, State of New Jersey v. Farber, 94 Misc.2d 886, 405 N.Y.S.2d 989 (1978). See also Ex parte Armes, 582 S.W.2d ......
-
State v. Smith, A--1092
...and testify at a criminal trial in our State. The remedy is equally available to the State and the defendant. In re Cooper, 127 N.J.L. 312, 313, 22 A.2d 532 (Sup.Ct.1941); In re Saperstein, 30 N.J.Super. 373, 104 A.2d 842 (App.Div.1954). We are not concerned herein with the requirement of N......