People v. Boudin

• Decision Date: 05 October 1983
• Citation: 95 A.D.2d 463,467 N.Y.S.2d 261
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Kathy BOUDIN et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 261

467 N.Y.S.2d 261

95 A.D.2d 463

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Kathy BOUDIN et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Oct. 5, 1983.

Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., New York City (Leonard I. Weinglass of counsel), for defendant Boudin.

Robert N. Isseks, Middletown, for defendant Brown.

Kenneth Gribetz, Dist. Atty., New City (Edward J. Meyer, Buffalo, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and DAMIANI, LAZER, MANGANO and GIBBONS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In People v. Boudin, 90 A.D.2d 253, 457 N.Y.S.2d 302, this court granted defendant Kathy Boudin's renewed application, joined in by codefendant Samuel Brown, and unopposed by the remaining four codefendants, for a pre-voir dire change of venue, and ordered removal of the entire action from the County Court of Rockland to the County Court of Orange County (see CPL 230.20, subd. 2). On the eve of their Orange County trial, and after the completion of their codefendants' trial, Ms. Boudin and Mr. Brown ask us again, pre-voir dire, to change the site of their trial to a "large, metropolitan community", for essentially the same reasons previously asserted, viz: that intense local publicity, coupled with community-wide prejudice, make it impossible to select an impartial jury in Orange County. The applications are denied with leave to renew, if necessary, after the voir dire.

The facts of this case have been stated elsewhere (see 87 A.D.2d 133, 451 N.Y.S.2d 153, and 90 A.D.2d 253, 457 N.Y.S.2d 302, supra ), and need not be repeated. Suffice it to say that after the defendants' change of venue application was granted, we denied, upon reconsideration, Ms. Boudin's January, 1983, application to change venue to either New York, Kings or Queens County. In July, Ms. Boudin's application to sever her trial from that of codefendants Weems (Balagoon), Clark, and Gilbert, was granted, as had been a similar application by Mr. Brown. On September 15, after a trial by jury, codefendants Weems (Balagoon), Clark, and Gilbert, were found guilty as charged. They are awaiting sentencing.

To support their contention in the present applications, Ms. Boudin and Mr. Brown have submitted a plethora of news articles published in Orange County. Beginning on December 15, 1982, when removal to Orange County was ordered, to the present, the articles bear varying degrees of relevance to Ms. Boudin and Mr. Brown. In addition, the defendants have submitted edited portions of the voir dire of the codefendants' trial, assorted articles from the Daily News, New York Post, and Time Magazine, and copies of transcripts of what purports to be interviews of Orange County residents, including the Mayor of Goshen. The defendants also point to certain events, namely: the codefendants' trial and Ms. Boudin's marriage to convicted codefendant David Gilbert, which events, the defendants maintain, not only have generated additional publicity but have aggravated the community's prejudice against them.

In People v. Boudin, 90 A.D.2d 253, 260, 457 N.Y.S.2d 302, supra we granted the pre-voir dire application because we were convinced "by the record...