People v. Costello
| Decision Date | 10 April 1968 |
| Citation | 290 N.Y.S.2d 194,21 N.Y.2d 967,237 N.E.2d 356 |
| Parties | , 237 N.E.2d 356 The PEOPLE etc., Respondent, v. Louis J. COSTELLO, Appellant. The PEOPLE etc., Respondent, v. Louis G. MARANGELO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
Henry B. Rothblatt, New York City (Richard T. Farrell, and Emma Alden Rothblatt, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellants.
Frank S. Hogan, New York City (H. Richard Uviller, and Michael Juviler, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Each of the two defendants was convicted under Section 600, subd. 6, of the former Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, of criminal contempt because of his refusal, after being granted immunity, to answer questions during his appearance before a grand jury investigating alleged crimes of conspiracy to bribe police officers and bribery of police officers to permit alleged violations of the gambling laws.
The Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, entered a judgment in each of the cases convicting the defendant of criminal contempt.
The Appellate Term entered a judgment in each of the cases affirming the judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York in each of the cases.
The defendant in each of the actions appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals.
The defendants contended that their refusal to answer questions which they believed were based on evidence illegally obtained by alleged wiretapping did not constitute criminal contempt within meaning of Section 600, subd. 6, of the former Penal Law, and that their prosecution thereunder for same acts which led to their prior imprisonment pursuant to the Judiciary Law, Consol.Laws, c. 30, § 750, subd. A, par. 5, subjected them to double punishment in violation of their constitutional and statutory rights, and that they had a constitutional right to have counsel present while they were being interrogated by the grand jury, and that it was a deprivation of due process for prosecution to refuse to disclose at the trial whether telephones of defendants had been tapped, and that immunity offered to defendant Costello was not adequate because he had already been summarily dismissed from his job on police force for refusal to sign waiver of immunity on earlier appearance before grand jury. The People contended in the Court of Appeals that assertions of defendants that some of the questions might have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McGrath
...may have in defense of a contempt proceeding, he cannot move to suppress evidence before a Grand Jury', citing People v. Costello (21 N.Y.2d 967, 290 N.Y.S.2d 194, 237 N.E.2d 356). Mr. McGrath was therefore directed to return to the Grand Jury and answer all relevant questions. Reappearing ......
-
People v. Failla
...three cases: Matter of Marangelo v. Criminal Court of City of New York, 49 Misc.2d 414, 267 N.Y.S.2d 791; People v. Costello, 21 N.Y.2d 967, 290 N.Y.S.2d 194, 237 N.E.2d 356; and People ex rel. Maurer v. Jackson, 2 N.Y.2d 259, 264, 159 N.Y.S.2d 203, 206, 140 N.E.2d 282, The facts in Costell......
-
People v. Mulligan
...We would agree that grand jury proceedings should not be interrupted by protracted suppression hearings. (Cf. People v. Costello, 21 N.Y.2d 967, 290 N.Y.S.2d 194, 237 N.E.2d 356.) Accordingly, if the defendant herein had moved for such relief when he was a witness, it could not have been pr......
-
People v. Colombo
...offense. We rejected that contention (25 N.Y.2d 641, 306 N.Y.S.2d 258, 254 N.E.2d 340) upon the authority of People v. Costello, 21 N.Y.2d 967, 290 N.Y.S.2d 194, 237 N.E.2d 356 and section 602 of the former Penal Law, (Penal Law 1965, § 215.55) which stated: 'Punishment for a contempt, as p......