People v. Del Rio
| Decision Date | 03 November 1960 |
| Citation | 25 Misc.2d 444,207 N.Y.S.2d 186 |
| Parties | PEOPLE, etc., v. Francisco Molina DEL RIO. |
| Court | New York Court of General Sessions |
Samuel A. Neuburger and Andrew R. Tyler, New York City, for defendant.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. of New York County, New York City, James G. Mosley, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York City, of counsel, for the People.
An application is made on behalf of the defendant by his attorney for an order directing the Warden of the New York City Prison and the Department of Correction to permit one George Tapia, to accompany the attorneys for the defendant upon such visits as they or either of them wish to make to the defendant during the period of pendency of this action, and for a further order directing the above named department to provide a place for consultation and preparation for said defendant which shall permit of privacy beyond the hearing of any person not authorized by the attorneys for the defendant, and for a further order directing the said departments to permit visitation to the defendant by an uncle and sister of the defendant.
The defendant has been indicted by the grand jury for the crimes of murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree (2 counts), and assault in the first degree (2 counts). Upon arraignment in Part I, of this court, the attorney for the defendant stated that he had not been in a position to consult with his client through an interpreter of his own choosing. He alleged that in view of the fact that he did not speak the Spanish language sufficiently to be able to confer with the defendant and that the defendant did not speak and understand sufficient English to confer with his counsel, the court at that time permitted counsel with an interpreter of defendant's choice, namely one George Tapia, to confer with the defendant in privacy in the court room. Thereafter counsel requested an adjournment 'for all purposes' of the arraignment. The court granted such request and adjourned the case until November 4, 1960.
Oral arguments were made before the court during which Mr. Frederick C. Rieber, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Correction, participated. Mr. Rieber indicated that the City Prison was under the supervision of the department of correction and, for security reasons, rules and regulations were promulgated; that in homicide cases, such as this, whenever a defendant was visited by a person not his counsel, an approval had to be first obtained from the district attorney's office. The district attorney intervened during the argument to state that their office was not objecting to the procedure followed by the Warden of the City Prison except as to the visit to be made by one George Tapia, who is not related to the defendant.
It is the duty of the Warden of the City Prison, having custody of persons charged with crime, to permit them to consult with their counsel and for such purpose the warden can make reasonable provision for those inmates who seek the opportunity to consult with their attorneys outside the hearing of other persons. As authorized by law, the control, management and care of the prisoners detained for sentence or those awaiting trial, come under the supervision of the department of correction (see N. Y. City Charter, §§ 621 and 623). Unless the regulations promulgated by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Case v. Andrews
...is reasonable as "obviously necessary" for prison security). Morales v. Turman, 326 F.Supp. 677 (E.D.Tex.1971); People v. Del Rio, 25 Misc.2d 444, 207 N.Y.S.2d 186 (1960); Krull v. United States, 240 F.2d at 122; Matter of Hughes v. Cashin, 184 Misc. 757, 54 N.Y.S.2d 437 (Consultation room ......