People v. Boudin
| Decision Date | 13 January 1983 |
| Citation | 117 Misc.2d 518,458 N.Y.S.2d 845 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Katherine BOUDIN, et al., Defendants. In the Matter of the Application of (Kuwasi Balagoon) Donald WEEMS, et al., Petitioners, For a Judgment Under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules v. Thomas GOLDRICK, Rockland County Sheriff and Elijah Coleman, Superintendent of the Rockland County Jail, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Kenneth Gribetz, Dist. Atty., New City, John S. Martin, Jr., U.S. Atty. S.D.N.Y., New York City, Marc Parris, County Atty., County of Rockland, New City, for the People.
Martin Garbus, New York City (Leonard I. Weinglass, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for defendant Boudin.
Evelyn A. Williams, New York City, for defendant Brown.
Susan Tipograph, New York City, for defendant Clark.
Judith Holmes, New York City, for defendant Weems.
Lynn Stewart, New York City, for defendant Gilbert.
Chokwe Lumumba, Detroit, Mich., for defendant Burns.
On December 15, 1982, a copy of a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum was delivered to this Court by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The writ, served upon the Sheriff of Rockland County, called for the production of Samuel Brown (one of the defendants in the above captioned indictments) before a Federal Grand Jury and further directing that upon the completion of his testimony, that he be returned "to such place as you are directed by this Court." At that time, the Court advised the United States Attorney that it would take no position on the writ until such time as the attorney for the defendant Brown had an opportunity to confer with him. After such a conference had been accomplished, (and more particularly, on January 6, 1983), there was another appearance involving the United States Attorney, the District Attorney of Rockland County, the defendant Brown and his attorney, and also appearances on behalf of the other defendants named in the within indictments. '(These later appearances were occasioned by the existence of a previously filed Article 78 proceeding and a consequent ruling of this Court that no defendant could be removed from the custody of the Sheriff of Rockland County without the approval of the Court.) It should be noted, also, that there has been no appearance by the Sheriff of Rockland County with regard to the writ, (or the Article 78 Proceeding) but with regard to the other parties aforementioned, the United States Attorney seeks compliance with the writ, the District Attorney opposes same, the defendant Brown wishes to comply with the writ and the other defendants not only are reaffirming their opposition under the Article 78 proceeding, but also claim they have standing to oppose the transfer as parties in the criminal action and move for a hearing to determine the degree of cooperation between the United States Attorney and the District Attorney pursuant to People v. Isaacson, 44 N.Y.2d 511, 406 N.Y.S.2d 714, 378 N.E.2d 78.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum provides for the appearance of the defendant Brown before a Federal Grand Jury. The initial question before the Court is whether or not the Court itself has any standing to intervene in the process. Clearly, it has no standing to test the sufficiency of the writ or to oppose compliance. This ability reposes in the defendant Brown, the Sheriff of Rockland County or the District Attorney of Rockland County. However, the Court is cognizant of its responsibility as the presiding judge in the above captioned matters to expedite the trial and move the same toward a speedy and just conclusion. The Court also is aware of the constitutional duty of the Sheriff to safeguard the defendant and to produce him in Court on appropriate occasions, and an equally compelling responsibility on the part of the District Attorney to prosecute the indictments returned by the Grand Jury of the County of Rockland. The trial is presently in progress (People v. Anderson, 16 N.Y.2d 282 at 288, 266 N.Y.S.2d 110, 213 N.E.2d 445) and it is incumbent upon the Court to insure its orderly progress. Certainly, the transfer of one of the defendants at this stage of the proceedings would interfere with this responsibility but it is apparent that the Court is powerless to intervene, per se. It would seem that this task would fall to the Sheriff and/or the District Attorney, whose constitutional responsibilities are being frustrated by the issuance of the writ. Accordingly, the Court is not in a position to "honor" the writ, or oppose the writ. The sufficiency of same and the application therefor, and the question of the authority of one jurisdiction to snatch a defendant from an ongoing trial in another jurisdiction, are matters to be raised in another forum by other participants.
The Court has previously entertained an Article 78 application filed by the defendants, seeking to prevent the Sheriff from transferring the defendants herein to another place of incarceration. The Sheriff indicated at that time that there were no present plans to move the defendants but the Court kept the application "open" in the sense that it directed that no defendant was to be moved without the consent of the Court. The Sheriff has complied with this restriction and has sought "clearance" from the Court on occasions when a defendant had to be moved. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Longwood
...482 N.Y.S.2d 939; People v. Macy, 100 A.D.2d 557, 473 N.Y.S.2d 261; People v. Ramos, 94 A.D.2d 708, 462 N.Y.S.2d 67; People v. Boudin, 117 Misc.2d 518, 521, 458 N.Y.S.2d 845). Defendant's renewed motion to dismiss the indictment made at the time of sentencing was properly denied on its meri......
-
People v. Bah
...violation of defendant's due process rights by prosecutorial misconduct, defendant is not entitled to a hearing. See People v. Boudin, 117 Misc.2d 518, 521, 458 N.Y.S.2d 845 (Sup.Ct. Rockland Co.1983). Thus, the branch of defendant's motion which sought an Isaacson hearing is Defendant's mo......