People v. Robinson
| Citation | 75 Misc.2d 807,349 N.Y.S.2d 259 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. James ROBINSON, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 25 October 1973 |
| Court | New York City Court |
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., Westchester County, White Plains, for complainant; Harold Hinz, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel.
Jerome J. Goldstein, Mount Vernon, for defendant.
On September 10, 1973 this Court ordered the District Attorney to furnish to the attorney for the defendant the names and addresses of persons whom the prosecution intends to call as witnesses at the trial of this harassment action, together with a copy of their relevant written statements, notes or memoranda, if any (75 Misc.2d 477, 347 N.Y.S.2d 860).
The District Attorney has now moved to re-argue defendant's motion.
Apparently the District Attorney is of the opinion that the Court's decision will serve as a precedent for all other types of criminal prosecutions.
The information here alleges that the defendant with intent to harass the police officer complainant Richard Johns 'did push him and shoved other police officers present against the wall' etc.
The decision in the instant case is limited to a situation where there is a police officer complainant and the potential witness referred to in the information is also a police officer.
This Court does not wish to belabor the issue but the fact is that a memorandum was issued on January 10, 1973 by the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference which states at page 2 that:
'plea discussions are a necessary and desirable part of the administration of criminal justice'
and at page 3 that:
'We therefore deem it to be the duty of every judge sitting in a court of criminal jurisdiction in New York State to encourage discussions between an Informed prosecuting attorney and an Informed defense counsel and, with the consent of the parties, to participate in such discussions whenever it appears to him that negotiations may serve to dispose of a criminal case by agreement or to clarify issues which are actually in dispute between the parties.' (Italics by this Court).
How can there be an informed and intelligent discussion if material facts available to both the prosecutor and the defense attorney are not laid upon the table.
As stated by County Judge Ernest L. Signorelli of Suffolk County in People v. Barnes, 74 Misc.2d 743, 744, 344 N.Y.S.2d 475, 476, on the subject of disclosure of names of potential prosecution witnesses,
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Green
...(City Ct. of Mt. Vernon, 1973); People v. Fraiser, 75 Misc.2d 756, 348 N.Y.S.2d 529 (County Ct., Nassau County, 1973); People v. Robinson, 75 Misc.2d 807, 349 N.Y.S.2d 259 (City Ct. of Mt. Vernon, 1973); People v. Bennett, 75 Misc.2d 1040, 349 N.Y.S.2d 506 (Sup.Ct., Erie County, 1973); Peop......
-
Vergari v. Kendall
...granted reargument of the original motion and upon reargument adhered to the original decision of September 10, 1973. (75 Misc.2d 807, 349 N.Y.S.2d 259) By decision and order dated October 30, 1973, in a criminal action involving a charge against the defendant, Nathaniel Thompson, for the a......