People v. Romler
| Decision Date | 16 May 1961 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Hugo ROMLER, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
John P. Cohalan, Jr., Dist. Atty., of Suffolk County, Riverhead (Harold Ashare, Asst. Dist. Atty., Patchogue, on the brief), for the People.
Weismann, Meyer & Wexler, Smithtown (Leonard D. Wexler, Smithtown, of counsel), for defendant.
This is a companion case to that of Gustave A. Dobler, decided recently. People v. Dobler, 215 N.Y.S.2d 313. This defendant was also indicted for Perjury in the First Degree. He moved to inspect the Grand Jury minutes or alternatively for dismissal of the indictment.
He testified before the Suffolk County Grand Jury under waiver of immunity regarding an answer sheet in a civil service examination taken by him on November 16, 1957. The accompanying identification sheet and essay sheets are concededly in his handwriting.
There was basis for suspicion that the answer sheet was not his for, as he testified, he believed he had answered all the questions on the examination and the questioned sheet contained 78 answers, all correct, with no other questions answered. The Grand Jury could well have determined that the answer sheet was a forged substitution, for there was strong evidence from experts that the handprinting on the answer sheet was not his.
But a charge of perjury against the defendant must be based on wilfully and knowingly testifying falsely under oath.
With reference to the answer sheet, he testifies:
'To the best of my knowledge, sir, I would say, I filled it out' (Minutes of October 27, 1960, p. 52).
'This looks like my handwriting' (Minutes, p. 53).
'With that comparison (i. e., with a sample of his handprinting) there seems to be a variance in the letters' (Minutes, p. 54).
As to whether he wrote it, 'Sir, I really don't know' (Minutes, p . 54).
'To the best of my knowledge, it is my answer sheet' (Minutes, p. 54).
'To the best of my knowledge, it is' (Minutes, p. 57).
'I have no way to be positive' (Minutes, p. 57).
'It looks like mine, sir' (Minutes, p. 57).
Then he answers yes to the question of whether he maintains this position in the 'face of two document experts' to the contrary. (Minutes, p. 57.)
He was then questioned for 10 pages on certain other matters. At no time was there any proof that he had taken part in or instigated any forgery of the original answer sheet.
The last questions he was asked are as follows:
I have examined the pertinent exhibits, including the identification sheet, essay sheets and answer sheet as well as the standards of comparison of his handprinting. While I can see that the experts could well testify and the Grand Jury could well believe that the handprinting on the answer sheet was a forgery, there still remains a lot of similarity between the handprinting on the answer sheet and that of the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dobler
...affirmed 170 N.Y. 561, 62 N.E. 1096). I may be called upon to write an opinion on such matters in the companion cases of People v. Romler, Co.Ct., 215 N.Y.S.2d 315 and People v. Mutz, both pending before me on similar motions in the Suffolk County This indictment must be dismissed for other......