People v. Graydon
Decision Date | 27 March 1972 |
Citation | 69 Misc.2d 574,330 N.Y.S.2d 259 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. James GRAYDON, Defendant. |
Court | New York County Court |
William Cahn, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, Mineola, for plaintiff.
Malone & Dorfman, Freeport, for defendant.
This is a motion by the defendant for an order dismissing the indictment.
On June 24, 1971, defendant was indicted for the crimes of Murder (P.L. § 125.25) and Assault First Degree (P.L. § 120.10).
The thrust of the defendant's motion is that the People violated his basic constitutional rights and irreparably compromised his defense by reading and copying defendant's mail while he was in the custody of the Nassau County Sheriff. Defendant contends that this violation occurred when the Sheriff's department permitted representatives of the District Attorney's office to review and retain copies of his mail, although he does not question the right of the Sheriff to read an inmate's mail.
'Your deponent is not questioning, at this time, the claimed right of the sheriff's office to read and review incoming and outgoing mail.' (Affidavit by defendant's attorney in support of this motion to dismiss the indictment, 1/28/72, p. 2)
The People state that what was turned over to the District Attorney's office was mail that defendant was sending to persons not on defendant's approved list of correspondents (See District Attorney's affidavit in opposition, pp. 2--3).
The case of Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, 40 S.Ct. 50, 64 L.Ed. 103, is in point. In Stroud, the defendant was convicted of Murder, First Degree. Part of the evidence that was offered by the People at the trial consisted of letters written by the defendant after the homicide and while he was incarcerated in prison waiting trial. The warden of the prison turned the letters over to the prosecution. The U.S. Supreme Court at pp. 21--22, 40 S.Ct. at pp. 52--53 held:
Of interest is the language in ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Electronic Surveillance § 4.1, where at pp. 125 and 126 it is stated:
See also the footnote in United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 790, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 1145, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (dissenting opinion) which reads, referring to the above ABA Project report:
Since Stroud, the right of prison officials to censor mail has not been denied (Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 8 L.Ed.2d 384; Ortega v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 561); although it has been limited to some extent. . However, there are no U.S. Supreme Court or New York cases that proscribe the censorship of mail that is sent to those not on an inmate's approved correspondence list.
No cited case would require a holding that the admitted screening of the defendant's mail and delivery of some of it to the district attorney was necessarily improper. The precise question here presented is whether such acts, even if they were determined to be improper, would require a dismissal of the indictment.
The defendant apparently relies on CPL § 210.20(1)(i) which authorizes the dismissal of an indictment when:
'Dismissal is required in the interest of justice, pursuant to section 210.40.'
CPL § 210.40(1) provides:
CPL § 210.40 substantially restates the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure § 671. The principal difference between Code of Criminal Procedure § 671 and the new CPL § 210.40 is that under prior law only the district attorney (or the court on its own motion) was authorized to move for dismissal in the interest of justice while under CPL § 210.40 the defendant may also so move. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Brown
...is capable of making voluntary inculpatory statements provided they are not prompted by interrogation or coercion. (People v. Graydon, 69 Misc.2d 574, 330 N.Y.S.2d 259; Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, 40 S.Ct. 50, 64 L.Ed. 103). Inasmuch as the statements here at issue were either not......
-
People v. Von Diezelski
...(Matter of Brabson v. Wilkins, 19 N.Y.2d 433, 280 N.Y.S.2d 561, 227 N.E.2d 383; Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178; see People v. Graydon, 69 Misc.2d 574, 330 N.Y.S.2d 259) and by pre-trial detainees (Collins v. Schoonfield, Supra, 344 F.Supp. at 276--277; Rhem v. McGrath, Supra, 326 F.Supp. ......
-
People v. Hargrove
...restates the provisions of the old code, but it also allows a defendant to initiate the motion. (Cf. People v. Graydon, 69 Misc.2d 574, 577, 330 N.Y.S.2d 259, 262.) It was true under the common law, it was true under former § 671, and it is true under the present § 210.40, that this power i......
-
People v. Shanis
...differ only in that now, under section 210.40, the defendant may also move to dismiss in the interest of justice. (People v. Graydon, 69 Misc.2d 574, 330 N.Y.S.2d 259 (Sup.Ct., Nassau Co., 1972).) Consequently, the application of section 210.40 of the Criminal Procedure Law should be applie......