People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 17 September 1984 |
| Citation | 479 N.Y.S.2d 966,125 Misc.2d 798 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Nathaniel JONES and Marzug Mohammed, Defendants. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Defendants seek dismissal of the information charging them with the crimes of Assault in the Third Degree, Obstructing Governmental Administration and Resisting Arrest on the grounds that they have not received a speedy trial as required by Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30. Their motion requires a determination of the People's obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 and People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881 as they relate to trial readiness.
The defendants were arrested on October 6, 1983. The incident allegedly involved injuries to one police officer and allegations of brutality on the part of police officers. The Transit Authority Police Department conducted an investigation which included interviews with five police officers who were present and seven bystanders. The identities of other civilians were discovered but those persons did not respond to the police investigator's communications. All interviews occurred between October 19, 1983 and December 7, 1983. The Transit Authority notified three of the bystander witnesses of the investigation's results on December 16, 1983. A report dated December 23, 1983 and approved on December 28, 1983 was prepared which found the allegations unsubstantiated.
During discovery proceedings each defendant requested, among other relief, all exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland, supra. The People's reply, filed November 30, 1983, stated that they were unaware of any Brady material. The case was adjourned until December 15, 1983 for trial. On that date, the People answered not ready and the case was adjourned to January 4, 1984.
Prior to January 4, 1984 the Assistant District Attorney (Assistant) prosecuting the case gave one defense attorney a copy of the December 23, 1983 report which the Assistant had subpoenaed. On January 4, 1984 the Assistant gave a copy to co-defendant's counsel. The Assistant did not have copies of the interviewer's handwritten notes which, although subpoenaed, were not provided by the Transit Authority. The People answered ready. During colloquy that day the Assistant acknowledged that he had subpoenaed the handwritten notes, that the Transit Authority had not complied with that portion of the subpoena and that he anticipated experiencing a further delay, perhaps even beyond January 23, 1984, in obtaining the notes due to their "sensitive nature."
On January 23, 1984 the parties adjourned the matter by consent to February 15, 1984. Thereafter the People were not ready until April 9, 1984. This motion followed.
Since the defendants are charged with class A misdemeanors and the case began on October 4, 1983, the People must be ready for trial within 90 days of that date or January 6, 1984. CPL 30.30(1)(b). The Assistant announced ready on the record on January 4, 1984 the eighty eighth (88) day as required. People v. Hamilton, 46 N.Y.2d 932, 415 N.Y.S.2d 208, 388 N.E.2d 345. If the People could have answered ready legitimately on January 4, 1984 then they met their obligation under the statute. People v. Giordano, 56 N.Y.2d 524, 525, 449 N.Y.S.2d 955, 434 N.E.2d 1333.
Defendants contend that the People were not ready on January 4, 1984 since they had not provided all the Brady material, namely the handwritten notes taken by the Transit Authority investigator. The defense position is that they must have had actual possession of Brady type material in this case before the People may answer ready legitimately. The defense assumption is incorrect.
Brady, supra 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97. The evil condemned was suppression of favorable evidence following a request by the defendant. Lest there be doubt about the decision's meaning the Supreme Court reiterated it in Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794-95, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 2568, 33 L.Ed.2d 706:
Interestingly, the Supreme Court has stated that, Brady v. Maryland did not create discovery rights which did not exist previously. "There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case and Brady did not create one ..." Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559, 97 S.Ct. 837, 846, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 Brady guarantees a fair trial without requiring or creating formal pre-trial discovery procedures to accomplish the disclosure of exculpatory evidence. *
The parties concede that the interview notes are Brady material. The question, therefore, is when must that material be disclosed and what is the legal significance of the People's not possessing those notes when they answered ready.
Since suppression is the prohibited evil, the prosecutor satisfies the disclosure obligation by revealing the favorable material in time for the defense to present it effectively for the jury's consideration during trial. The Court in United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 577, although disapproving a practice of delayed production, upheld a conviction where Brady material was disclosed during trial. The Court stated,
"if exculpatory evidence can be effectively presented at trial and the defendant is not prevented by lack of time to make needed investigation, there is no reversible prosecutorial conduct in ill-timed presentation." Kaplan, at 580 (citations omitted).
Clearly, the preferred practice is pre-trial disclosure since delayed disclosure, during trial, may be so unfair as to occasion a mistrial, with a resultant double...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Corporan
...568; People v. Allen, 108 A.D.2d 601, 484 N.Y.S.2d 830, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 529, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119, 488 N.E.2d 1231; People v. Jones, 125 Misc.2d 798, 479 N.Y.S.2d 966). The minutes in this case were not required for the court's decision of the defendant's omnibus motion (see, People v. Pardner,......
-
People v. Fernandez
...effectively presented at trial there is no Brady violation (United States v. Kaplan, 3d Cir., 554 F.2d 577, 579-580; People v. Jones, 125 Misc.2d 798, 801, 479 N.Y.S.2d 966). In the instant case, there has been no showing that defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor's conduct or by Count......