People v. Provenzano
| Decision Date | 07 June 1979 |
| Citation | 417 N.Y.S.2d 317,70 A.D.2d 960 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony PROVENZANO and Harold Konigsberg, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Fischetti & Shargel, New York City (Gerald L. Shargel, New York City, of counsel), John L. Pollok, Hoffman, Pollok, Mass & Gasthalther, New York City, Jay Goldberg, New York City, of counsel to Maurice Edelbaum, New York City, attorney of record for appellant Provenzano.
Ivan S. Fisher, New York City, for appellant Konisgberg.
E. Michael Kavanagh, Ulster County Dist. Atty., Kingston, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and GREENBLOTT, KANE, MAIN and MIKOLL, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County, rendered June 21, 1978, upon a verdict convicting defendants of the crime of murder in the first degree (former Penal Law, § 1044).
Anthony Provenzano and Harold Konigsberg were charged with the murder of one Anthony Castellito approximately 15 years after he disappeared in June of 1961. Although Castellito's body was never discovered, the defendants were jointly tried and convicted upon proof consisting of admissions, accomplice testimony and circumstantial evidence. That proof differed somewhat as to each defendant, but some of the alleged errors raised by them on this appeal involve matters equally applicable to both. In particular, it is contended that the trial court improperly denied their challenge for cause to an individual juror, Theresa E. Thomas. We agree.
The record discloses that Mrs. Thomas had met the trial prosecutor, Michael Kavanagh, about three years previously and that both were members of a local political club. In addition to their social acquaintance, she had participated in Mr. Kavanagh's successful campaign to become Ulster County District Attorney in the general election conducted some seven months before the trial. Section 270.20 (subd. 1, par. (c)) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides for the disqualification of a juror who, Inter alia, "bears some * * * relationship to * * * (counsel for the people) of such nature that it is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict." Defendants' objection to jury service by Mrs. Thomas on that basis was disallowed and the parties have stipulated in argument before this court that the challenge was made under circumstances that would constitute a ground for reversal if such ruling was erroneous (CPL 270.20, subd. 2).
In People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 415 N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467, the Court of Appeals squarely decided that a prospective juror's expurgatory declaration of impartiality was unavailing when the foregoing claim of implied bias was established. Consequently, even though there was no reason to doubt Mrs. Thomas' statement that her association with the District...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Konigsberg
...term defendant was then serving. Initially reversed by this court for errors committed during jury selection ( see, People v. Provenzano, 70 A.D.2d 960, 417 N.Y.S.2d 317), both judgments were reinstated by the Court of Appeals and the case remanded to this court for determination of issues ......
-
United States v. Provenzano
...granted by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, approximately two weeks after Provenzano's trial here. People v. Provenzano, 417 N.Y.S.2d 317, 70 A.D.2d 960 (1979). Provenzano had been represented at trial in that case by Maurice Edelbaum, Esq., one of his attorneys on the instan......
-
People v. Provenzano
...a new trial was ordered on the ground the trial court had improperly denied their challenge of an individual juror for cause (70 A.D.2d 960, 417 N.Y.S.2d 317). The Court of Appeals, distinguishing its earlier holding in People v. Branch (46 N.Y.2d 645, 415 N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467), rej......
-
U.S. v. Provenzano
...17, 1979, Provenzano's Ulster County Court conviction was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial. People v. Provenzano, 70 A.D.2d 960, 417 N.Y.S.2d 317 (3d Dept. 1979).12 Appellant was convicted of conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1954 (1976) which, in relevant part, provides:"......