People v. Sepos
| Decision Date | 03 December 1964 |
| Citation | 254 N.Y.S.2d 759,22 A.D.2d 1007 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George SEPOS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Henry Ward Williams, Jr., Rochester, for appellant.
John C. Little, Jr., Rochester, for respondent (S. K. Pollard, Rochester, of counsel).
Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, HENRY, NOONAN and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.
The appellant alleges that while he was being interrogated by the State Police about a robbery, four newspaper reporters and three television cameramen were present; that he was made to pose for sound motion picture cameras with the stolen money bag allegedly taken in the hold-up; that thereafter the television commentators related the crime, arrest and interrogation as the television screen showed these incidents. While we make no comment on the right of freedom of the press or the permissible limits of the newsmen's endeavors, we think, if the allegations of the petition are true, that the active participation by law enforcement officers in the events alleged to have occurred was reprehensible, shocking and difficult to understand in a civilized, lawful community. Therefore, we are remitting this matter for a hearing to determine whether these events occurred and, if so, who was responsible for and who participated, and to determine whether the television coverage depicting the defendant in unfavorable circumstances jeopardized or in any way prejudiced his rights to a fair and impartial disposition of his case.
Order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Monroe County Court for a hearing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Boudin
...407 [television broadcast of damaging interviews with defendant permitted by police]; see, also, Irvin v. Dowd, supra; People v. Sepos, 22 A.D.2d 1007, 254 N.Y.S.2d 759, affd. 16 N.Y.2d 662, 261 N.Y.S.2d 293, 209 N.E.2d With these principles in mind, then, we turn to the evidence presented ......
-
People v. DiPiazza
... ... Indeed, a comparison of the news accounts in the present case with the publicity attending the trials of those in which a change of venue was held mandated is persuasive that the court was thoroughly justified in denying the defendant's application. (See e.g., People v. Sepos, 16 N.Y.2d 662, 261 N.Y.S.2d 293, 209 N.E.2d 285, affg. 22 A.D.2d 1007, 254 N.Y.S.2d 759; People v. Luedecke, 22 A.D.2d 636, 258 N.Y.S.2d 115; Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543; Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663; see, also, Sheppard v ... ...
-
People v. Whitmore
...these matters created a deep-rooted prejudice which might necessarily influence the average person. In People v. Sepos (cited as 22 A.D.2d 1007, 254 N.Y.S.2d 759, App.Div. 4th Dept.), the defendant after conviction moved to vacate the judgment and sought a new trial because of the inflammat......
-
Whitehurst v. State
...special veniremen knew that they were called to serve on this case.' (Verbatim copy; bracketed matter added.) In People v. Sepos, 22 A.D.2d 1007, 254 N.Y.S.2d 759, the Fourth Department remanded for a further hearing on a conviction where newspaper reporters and television cameramen alleged......