People v. Jaglom
| Decision Date | 31 March 1966 |
| Citation | 269 N.Y.S.2d 405,17 N.Y.2d 162,216 N.E.2d 576 |
| Parties | , 216 N.E.2d 576 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael JAGLOM and Thomas Gregory, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Harris B. Steinberg and Stanley S. Arkin, New York City, for Michael Jaglom, appellant.
Audrey Fox Anderson, New York City, for Thomas Gregory, appellant.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Eric A. Seiff and H. Richard Uviller, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant Gregory has been adjudged to be a youthful offender and defendant Jaglom has been found guilty of a misdemeanor, both in the Criminal Court of the City of New York.
In both cases the defendant requested that the District Attorney make available the Grand Jury minutes for his examination prior to the trial. The minutes were then still in stenographic form and the District Attorney informed counsel that they were available for examination, but that the costs of transcribing the testimony requested would have to be borne by the defense. In neither case is there a claim of indigency. The defense refused to pay for the transcriptions, and when the cases came to trial the court was asked to instruct the District Attorney to purchase the minutes. These requests were denied and the Appellate Term affirmed in both cases.
There is no doubt that under the 'prior statement' rule defense counsel has a right to examine prior statements of the People's witnesses. The transcriptions of Grand Jury testimony of course fall within this 'prior statement' rule. But the question here is whether the People are required in every case to have testimony transcribed for use by the defense free of charge.
This question ought to be answered in the negative. Although in People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, we held that the defense had a right to examine prior nonconfidential statements, the decision in that case does not forbid the imposition of conditions that are reasonable. The right to examine prior nonconfidential statements is no different than the right to appeal or right to counsel. In exercising the latter rights the defendant bears the expense unless he is indigent.
The language of the opinion in Rosario, as well as that found in Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103, is consistent with a defendant's bearing the reasonable burden of paying for the transcription of Grand Jury minutes. In those cases there was a direct interference with the defendant's rights by way of an unqualified refusal on the part of the prosecutor. In the present cases nothing was withheld from the defendants. Indeed the minutes were made available to them. There was nothing standing in their way other than their own unwillingness to pay the stenographic costs. The imposition of this moderate condition on a defendant's right to examine the Grand Jury minutes does not prevent the exercise of the right. The nonindigent defendant has always paid for attorneys, investigators, the preparation of exhibits, and the printing costs for an appeal, as well as paying the stenographic expenses involved in the preparation of the record on appeal. Heretofore when a motion to inspect Grand Jury minutes which were in stenographic form was granted, the defendant, unless indigent, paid for them.
Section 952--t of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it the obligation of the Grand Jury stenographer to furnish Only such transcripts of the minutes to the District Attorney 'as (he) shall require'. There are a multitude of cases, particularly those in the misdemeanor category, where the District Attorney does not require the minutes in order to prosecute. However, whenever the People secure typewritten portions of the Grand Jury Munutes for prosecution purposes they should readily be made available to the defense for the purpose of cross-examining the People's witnesses. Furthermore, under present practice, where an accused is unable to pay typing expenses (not the situation in these cases), those portions of the minutes which he requests must be paid for by the People.
When the minutes have not been transcribed, however, a solvent defendant's right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Graf
...and agreed to pay the reasonable and necessary costs for transcribing the same. Thus he met the conditions of People v. Jaglom, 17 N.Y.2d 162, 269 N.Y.S.2d 405, 216 N.E.2d 576. Such grand jury minutes, if required, must be furnished not only at a trial, but, if required, also at any hearing......
-
People v. Di Napoli
...of witness' grand jury testimony for impeachment purposes--is commonplace and perfectly proper. (See People v. Jaglom, 17 N.Y.2d 162, 164, 269 N.Y.S.2d 405, 406, 216 N.E.2d 576, 577; People v. Pizarro, 15 N.Y.2d 803, 804, 257 N.Y.S.2d 600, 601, 205 N.E.2d 695; People v. Agron, 10 N.Y.2d 130......
-
People ex rel. Cadogan v. McMann
...trial or of a Grand Jury (People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 604, 286 N.Y.S.2d 1, 4, 233 N.E.2d 103, 105, cf. People v. Jaglom, 17 N.Y.2d 162, 269 N.Y.S.2d 405, 216 N.E.2d 576). He points out that the minutes are especially important when, as occurred in this case, some of the witnesses who ......
-
United States v. LaVallee
...prior to trial, access to a transcript of a preliminary hearing because of his inability to pay (cf. People v. Jaglom, 17 N.Y.2d 162, 165, 269 N.Y.S.2d 405, 216 N.E.2d 576). We hold, therefore, that when a defendant requests a transcript and when that request is accompanied by an affidavit ......