People v. McMahon
| Decision Date | 26 October 1972 |
| Citation | 72 Misc.2d 1097,341 N.Y.S.2d 318 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Michael McMAHON, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Arnold W. Proskin, Dist. Atty., Albany County, Albany (Ira Mendleson, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albany County, Albany, of counsel), for the People.
John J. Cavanaugh, Jr., Albany, for defendant.
Defendant above named herein moves that the court issue an order of discovery, pursuant to the provisions of Section 240.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The items sought to be discovered, as set forth in the notice of motion, are (a) written or recorded statements made by the defendant to the District Attorney, his assistants or any law enforcement agencies, (b) a transcription of oral statements made to the same people, which were reduced to writing or if not so reduced, then to provide with the substance of the latter statements, (c) inspection of certain lottery tickets alleged to be forged instruments, (d) reports, documents and writings relative to scientific tests made on the same tickets, (e) statements of all persons alleged to be conspirators and now under indictment by the grand jury, (f) list of witnesses who appeared before the grand jury, (g) any tangible evidence, used to exculpate or provide mitigating factors in connection with the defendant's alleged commission of the crimes set forth in the indictment.
In approaching its decision on the instant motion, the court deemed it prudent to observe the present and historical place of discovery in our criminal jurisprudence structure. For a long time discovery was not a right accruing to the defendant, either in federal or state jurisdictions. It first made its appearance in decisional law and only the federal jurisdiction and a few states have attempted to codify principles. Federal statutory rule first came with the Rule 16 of Criminal Procedure (U.S. Code, tit. 18, Appendix) and that rule was materially expanded and liberalized in 1966. All this time New York courts have moved on an ad hoc basis and rules enumerated in the cases were for a long time restrictive. A trend toward liberalization set in, and the present new statute is New York's first attempt at codification. With some structural and phraseological change Section 240.20 is, in substance, an adoption of Federal Rule 16 as amended in 1966.
Attitude should play an important role in interpretation. In days gone by strict adherence to the cardinal principles of the adversary system meant keeping the defendant in the dark and requiring him to meet by way of defense at trial all that which the prosecutor brought forth. The supporting rationale for the conservative position seemed to be that the defendant had enough protection and perhaps advantage in the presumption of innocence and the privilege against self incrimination. The approach seems to be that a game was being played and the tactics employed by respective counsel were the thing to be judged or justified. All lost sight of the fact that the law exists to administer justice and the rights of either side must yield to reach that end. On the other side of the coin, no prosecutor can be expected to do his duty and at the same time be required to lay bare his entire case to permit the defendant to have free rein in pre-trial attack thereon. Balance must be sought between both positions. Appropriate seem the words of the court in United States v. Westmoreland, D.C., 41 F.R.D. 419 at page 425 'The court is not unmindful of the desirability of maintaining the efficacy of the adversary system as a means of administering justice--justice based on truth--truth, both from the side of the government and from the said of the defendant, bearing in mind the constitutional protections of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Utley
...reflected in any book, record or paper in the possession of law enforcement personnel, they are subject to discovery. People v. McMahon, 72 Misc.2d 1097, 341 N.Y.S.2d 318; People v. Zacchi, 69 Misc.2d 785, 331 N.Y.S.2d 86; People v. Bennett, 75 Misc.2d 1040, 1051, 349 N.Y.S.2d 506, 519; § 2......
-
People v. Green
...348 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 301 N.E.2d 869; People v. Royster, 73 Misc.2d 89, 341 N.Y.S.2d 559 (City Ct. of Mt. Vernon, 1973); People v. McMahon, 72 Misc.2d 1097, 341 N.Y.S.2d 318 (County Ct., Albany County, 1972); People v. Leto Bros., Inc., 70 Misc.2d 347, 334 N.Y.S.2d 298 (County Ct., Albany Coun......
-
People v. Bottom
...there must be reliance on the presumption that the prosecutor will perform his duty not to suppress.' (People v. McMahon, 72 Misc.2d 1097 at pp. 1099--1100, 341 N.Y.S.2d 318, 320.) The instant case provides a suitable occasion for further discussion of the role of Brady prior to Evidence wh......
-
People v. Simone
...v. Privitera,80 Misc.2d 344, 363 N.Y.S.2d 226; People v. Bottom, 76 Misc.2d 525, 526-527, 351 N.Y.S.2d 328, 332, 333; People v. McMahon, 72 Misc.2d 1097, 341 N.Y.S.2d 318). However, a number of courts have granted discovery of a wide range of official documents, including police arrest, inv......