People v. St. John

• Decision Date: 27 December 1966
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. James D. ST. JOHN, Gary L. Crouse and Daryl Crouse, Defendants.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 699

276 N.Y.S.2d 699

52 Misc.2d 410

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. James D. ST. JOHN, Gary L. Crouse and Daryl Crouse, Defendants.

Oneida County Court.

Dec. 27, 1966.

Arthur A. Darrigrand, Dist. Atty., for the People, opposed.

Donald L. Austin, Public Defender of Oneida County, for defendant Gary L. Crouse, in support.

Anthony J. Fernicola, Utica, for defendant James D. St. John, in support.

Louis T. Brindisi, Utica, for defendant Daryl Crouse, opposed.

JOHN J. WALSH, Judge:

The defendant, Gary L. Crouse, moves that the case of the defendant, St. John, be severed from his trial, and that St. John be given a separate trial on the ground that it would be prejudicial to him to be tried jointly with St. John. He claims that certain admissions or statements made by St. John, if used on the trial would confuse the jury and prejudice his right to a fair trial uninfluenced by extraneous matters not binding upon him.

Defendant St. John is represented by Mr. Anthony Fernicola as retained counsel. Mr. Fernicola was assigned by the Utica City Court during the preliminary examination on the instant charge to represent defendant Daryl Crouse. This was the result of the disqualification of Mr. Brindisi to appear in the Utica City Court by reason of the fact that his law partner, Hon. John L. Murad was at the time an Associate City Judge of that Court. After Mr. Fernicola's representation of Daryl Crouse at the examination in which he participated in the cross-examination of the People's witnesses, his duty as assigned counsel ceased.

After the indictment of the three co-defendants and the statement by Mr. Austin that there might be a conflict of interest between the defendants, this Court assigned Mr. Brindisi to represent the defendant Daryl Crouse.

The defendant Daryl Crouse moves this Court for an order disqualifying Mr. Fernicola from acting as retained counsel for defendant St. John upon the ground that a conflict of interest will arise by reason of the fact that Fernicola, having access to confidential matters during the time he represented Daryl Crouse would be in a position to prejudice Crouse during a joint trial.

In answer, defendant St. John asserts his right to retain counsel of his own choosing, and asks for a separate trial if there is any claim of prejudice by the other defendants.

The wisdom, if not the duty of this Court to grant a separate trial for defendant St. John seems clear after reading the very excellent opinion by Justice Sobel in People v. Krugman (1964) 44 Misc.2d 48, 252 N.Y.S.2d 846.

'Against the sole advantage of economy and expedition, many reasons exist why a joint trial may result in undue prejudice to one or more defendants'...