People v. Luedecke
| Decision Date | 09 April 1965 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Robert LUEDECKE, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William L. Clay, Rochester, for defendant.
John C. Little, Jr., Dist. Atty., County of Monroe, Rochester, for the People.
Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, NOONAN and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.
On this motion to remove the trial of the defendant indicted for murder, first degree, from the County of Monroe, the defendant asserts that he will be unable to receive a fair and impartial trial in Monroe and some fourteen nearby counties (Code Crim.Proc. § 344, subd. 2 and § 346, subd. 2) by reason of a news telecast in which the defendant was shown re-enacting the alleged crime before the TV camera of one of the largest TV stations in this area. It is undisputed that there is a population of over 1,000,000 in said counties and that a survey of viewers indicates that there are approximately 40,200 homes which normally view the newscasts of this station. The presentation of the film on two news telecasts in the evening at six-fifteen and eleven o'clock, defendant contends, seriously impaired, if not destroyed, his right to a fair trial.
After indictment and assignment of counsel, a hearing was held in County Court upon defendant's motion to suppress the use of the film by the District Attorney. It was agreed by the District Attorney that it would not be used in defendant's trial. The defendant now submits the testimony taken at the hearing as the sole basis for his claim that a fair trial cannot be had. No other affidavits are presented in support of this motion except those of the defendant and his attorney.
The film used was admitted in evidence at the hearing and we have viewed it and read the statement made by the broadcaster simultaneously with the showing of the film.
The defendant was taken into custody at about 4:30 a. m. on May 3, 1963 and after interrogation by police officers and the then District Attorney he was taken, an hour later, to the Canada Dry plant. It was on those premises that the night watchman had been slain about five months before, and for whose murder the defendant stands indicted. Accompanying the defendant were about seven police officers, some in uniform and others in plainclothes, a police stenographer, the television camera man and the then District Attorney of Monroe County. The defendant was without counsel or anyone else associated with him and was required to re-enact the commission of the alleged crime. The camera man proceeded to take approximately 100 feet of film showing the defendant gaining entrance through a window, prying a lock from a door with a crowbar which is claimed to be the murder weapon, driving a lift truck with which he broke the combination of the safe, and being surprised by the night watchman (whose part was played by a detective) who jumped upon defendant's back while defendant had the crowbar in his hand. At this point the District Attorney, who was in the picture at all times, took the crowbar from defendant.
The newscaster announced the film by stating: 'murder of night watchman solved--confessed killer re-enacts crime'. The following is a part of the commentary of the mewscaster during the running of the film:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Boudin
...publication of court's ruling on suppression motion with detailed rendition of testimony adduced at pretrial hearing]; People v. Luedecke, 22 A.D.2d 636, 258 N.Y.S.2d 115 [television broadcast of defendant's re-enactment of the crime]; People v. Martin, 19 N.Y.2d 864, 280 N.Y.S.2d 594, 227 ......
-
People v. Brensic
...the defendant's motion to suppress his alleged statements and certain evidentiary items obtained during questioning]; People v. Luedecke, 22 A.D.2d 636, 258 N.Y.S.2d 115 [the defendant, accompanied by police and prosecutor, was required to re-enact the crime for television and re-enactment ......
-
People v. DiPiazza
...(See e.g., People v. Sepos, 16 N.Y.2d 662, 261 N.Y.S.2d 293, 209 N.E.2d 285, affg. 22 A.D.2d 1007, 254 N.Y.S.2d 759; People v. Luedecke, 22 A.D.2d 636, 258 N.Y.S.2d 115; Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543; Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d......
-
State v. Butler
...nature as to be obvious to everyone. Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963); People v. Luedecke, 22 A.D.2d 636, 258 N.Y.S.2d 115 (1965); People v. Martin, 19 A.D.2d 804, 243 N.Y.S.2d 343 (1963); See Delaney v. United States, 199 F.2d 107, 39 A.L.R.2d 1300 (1......