People v. Einhorn
| Decision Date | 20 December 1974 |
| Citation | 365 N.Y.S.2d 171,324 N.E.2d 551,35 N.Y.2d 948 |
| Parties | , 324 N.E.2d 551 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Gerald EINHORN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Richard H. Kuh, Dist. Atty. (Lewis R. Friedman, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Stanley M. Meyer and Ira D. London, Brooklyn, for respondent.
A Grand Jury witness need not answer questions based on information obtained as the result of illegal wiretapping (U.S.Code, tit. 18, § 2515). Nor may the contempt power be used to compel such testimony or punish the witness for his silence. The claim of illegal wiretapping, if sustained, constitutes a defense.
However, when the witness raises the objection during the Grand Jury proceeding, unless he requests to be brought before the court, the prosecutor is not obligated to affirm or deny the underlying facts. *
The request during the Grand Jury proceeding by the witness that he be brought before the court must be respected and once there the Presiding Justice may make appropriate inquiry whether the witness' objection is sound. In the course of that inquiry, the court, may, in its discretion interrogate the prosecutor under oath, either In camera, or in open court, whether or not the basis for the questioning of the witness was founded on the illegally obtained wiretap evidence.
In this case, defendant did not seek the advice or instruction of the court and, accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed.
Order reversed and case remitted to Appellate Division, First Department, 45 A.D.2d 75, 356 N.Y.S.2d 620 for consideration of the facts (CPL 470.40, subd. 2, par. (b); 470.25, subd. 2, par. (d)).
* The Federal statute (U.S.Code, tit. 18, § 3504) requiring the prosecutor to affirm or deny in Federal Grand Jury proceedings does not apply to the States, and the legislative history indicates that the omission was intentional. (See House Rept. 1549, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 3, 16, 1970 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 4007, 4009, 4027 (1970).)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dercole
...(People v. Einhorn, 74 Misc.2d 958, 346 N.Y.S.2d 326, revd. on other grounds 45 A.D.2d 75, 356 N.Y.S.2d 620, revd. 35 N.Y.2d 948, 365 N.Y.S.2d 171, 324 N.E.2d 551) and the product of deliberate choice (People v. Ruggiano, 39 A.D.2d 113, 332 N.Y.S.2d 458). In both of the latter cases the nec......
-
People v. McGrath
...the contempt power may not "be used to compel such testimony or punish the witness for his silence." (People v. Einhorn, 35 N.Y.2d 948, 949, 365 N.Y.S.2d 171, 172, 324 N.E.2d 551, Supra.) If sustained, the illegality of the wiretap constitutes a defense to prosecution for criminal contempt.......
-
People v. McGrath
...that the surveillance was unlawful.' (491 F.2d at p. 1162 (emphasis in original).) In People v. Einhorn (35 N.Y.S.2d 948, 365 N.Y.S.2d 171, 324 N.E.2d 551, rev'g 45 A.D.2d 75, 356 N.Y.S.2d 620), the Court, in a Per curiam opinion, adopted the Persico-like procedure of an inquiry by the Pres......
-
Dampman v. Morgenthau
...700. Implicitly, there should be no disclosure of any information obtained by unauthorized means. [See, People v. Einhorn, 35 N.Y.2d 948, 365 N.Y.S.2d 171, 324 N.E.2d 551 [1974]; Gelbard v. United States, supra, 408 U.S. at pp. 51-52, 92 S.Ct. at 2362-63; CPLR 4506[1]; and see, e.g., Anthon......