People v. Tyler
Citation | 385 N.E.2d 1224,46 N.Y.2d 251,413 N.Y.S.2d 295 |
Parties | , 385 N.E.2d 1224 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Andrew R. TYLER, Respondent. |
Decision Date | 20 December 1978 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Based on testimony he gave before a Grand Jury, defendant, a Supreme Court Justice, was convicted after jury trial on three counts of perjury in the first degree (Penal Law, § 210.15). He was sentenced to probation. The Special Prosecutor appeals from the Appellate Division's unanimous reversal and dismissal of the indictment.
There should be an affirmance.
Involved are defendant's false answers to questions limited to the outward details of place and time of a single meeting between defendant and a reputed criminal character. The primary issue is whether a prosecution for perjury may be based on such false answers where the prosecutor, in his questioning, demonstrated no palpable interest in eliciting facts material to the authorized substantive investigation of antecedent crime or official misconduct. A secondary issue is whether the false answers about peripheral details of the single meeting may support a perjury prosecution without the prosecutor laying enough of a foundation to recall to the witness' mind what, without some prodding, may have in truth escaped the witness' recollection. In resolving the issues it is concluded that the conviction may not stand, and the indictment was properly dismissed as a matter of law.
First elected to the Civil Court in 1967, defendant became a Supreme Court Justice in January, 1970. Admitted to the Bar sometime after World War II, for the 18 years before he became a Judge defendant had been a lawyer practicing largely on his own and devoting about 50% Of his time to criminal matters.
In February, 1975 an Extraordinary Grand Jury was charged, among other things, with investigating the relationship of defendant with certain known gambling figures. The inquiry, which included 20 sessions at which 22 witnesses were heard, was not concluded until October, 1976. Among the gamblers was one Raymond Marquez, also known as "Spanish" Raymond, the reputed head of one of the largest illegal gambling operations in New York. The Grand Jury was informed that Marquez, who was released from Federal prison in April, 1975, had been convicted of both Federal and State crimes, including interstate racketeering, gambling policy, and contempt.
Each of the counts charged in the instant indictment for perjury before the Grand Jury arises out of defendant's answers to questions concerning a single meeting with Marquez. According to the acting forewoman of the Grand Jury, the inquiry was aimed at uncovering any bribery, bribe receiving, or official misconduct.
Three police officers involved in an extensive personal surveillance of defendant testified to the Grand Jury that on May 16, 1975, after the Grand Jury had been convened, they saw Marquez in defendant's company. According to the officers, after some activity that suggested he may have been waiting for someone, defendant met Marquez and his wife near Lincoln Center in Manhattan. They drove about 10 blocks in defendant's automobile to Patsy's Restaurant on West 56th Street, and remained there for over an hour. Upon leaving, defendant and Marquez allegedly spoke for 10 minutes, while Mrs. Marquez sat in defendant's automobile. Defendant then drove the two back to where their own automobile was garaged. Substantially the same testimony was given by the officers at trial.
Defendant appeared before the Grand Jury on four occasions, and on two was questioned about Marquez. Other areas of inquiry were defendant's background and how he came to be a Judge, defendant's acquaintance with other reputed gamblers, and bail applications granted by defendant out of the ordinary courtroom setting.
On March 2, 1976, defendant's second appearance, defendant testified that he knew Marquez as a man who had been convicted "some years ago for policy", and recalled representing him as a lawyer "in the fifties" in a case that "had something to do with gambling." When asked about contacts with Marquez since defendant had become a Supreme Court Justice, defendant denied communicating with him. He remembered, however, that as he was going to his courthousechambers one day he saw Marquez being escorted by Marshals to Federal court.
Marquez was not mentioned when defendant appeared before the Grand Jury for the third time on May 18, 1976. In his final appearance two days later, however, Marquez was again the subject of inquiry. This time, when asked about communications with Marquez, defendant, who later explained at trial that a discussion he had had with his wife following his earlier appearance had refreshed his recollection, recalled the May 16 meeting:
At this final appearance, defendant also corrected his earlier testimony to reflect that his former representation of Marquez related not to gambling, but to a violation of probation arising out of an assault.
A four-count indictment for perjury in the first degree followed. As noted, the charges are entirely based on defendant's answers to questions about the single meeting with Marquez. The first count charges defendant with falsely stating that he had not "talked to Marquez" since becoming a Supreme Court Justice. That count, presumably because of defendant's later recantation, resulted in an acquittal, but defendant was convicted of the three remaining counts. Count two alleges that "upon being asked where he saw Marquez for the first time on May 16, 1975, (defendant) testified that it was in front of Patsy's Restaurant." Under count three, it is asserted that defendant testified that his meeting with Marquez "had lasted about ten to fifteen minutes." The fourth count alleges that "upon being asked what happened after conversing with Marquez in Patsy's Restaurant, (defendant) testified that * * * he exited the Restaurant and left Marquez inside the premises." The surveillance team, as observed earlier, had testified that defendant, after driving the couple 10 blocks to the restaurant, talked to them there for over an hour, and upon leaving, but before driving them to their garage, spoke to Mr. Marquez while Mrs. Marquez waited in defendant's automobile.
Among the grounds for reversal adopted by the Appellate Division were that in counts two and three the materiality necessary to a conviction for perjury in the first degree was lacking and that in counts two and four the falsity of the statements alleged was insufficiently proved. Since the challenged interrogation amounted, on the whole, to an impermissible "perjury trap", neither ambiguity nor insufficiency of evidence, usually issues of fact resolvable by the jury, need be discussed (see People v. Dunleavy, 41 A.D.2d 717, 341 N.Y.S.2d 500, affd. 33 N.Y.2d 573, 347 N.Y.S.2d 448, 301 N.E.2d 432; cf. People v. Goldman, 21 N.Y.2d 152, 160, 287 N.Y.S.2d 7, 13, 234 N.E.2d 194, 198, app. dsmd. 392 U.S. 643, 88 S.Ct. 2280, 20 L.Ed.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Pelchat
...the prosecutor for improper motives (see, e.g., United States v. DeMarco, 401 F.Supp. 505, affd. 550 F.2d 1224; People v. Tyler, 46 N.Y.2d 251, 413 N.Y.S.2d 295, 385 N.E.2d 1224; Matter of Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314, 318, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590, 347 N.E.2d This conviction must be revers......
-
People v. D'Alvia
...of fact for the jury (see, People v. Davis, 53 N.Y.2d 164, supra, at 174, 440 N.Y.S.2d 864, 423 N.E.2d 341; People v. Tyler, 46 N.Y.2d 251, 259, 413 N.Y.S.2d 295, 385 N.E.2d 1224). At bar, the jury properly rejected the perjury trap defense as the purpose of the Grand Jury investigation was......
-
People v. Monroe
...for improper motives." Id. (citing U.S. v. DeMarco, 401 F.Supp. 505, affd. 550 F.2d 1224 (9th Cir.1977); People v. Tyler, 46 N.Y.2d 251, 413 N.Y.S.2d 295, 385 N.E.2d 1224; Matter of Cunningham v. Nadjari, 39 N.Y.2d 314, 318, 383 N.Y.S.2d 590, 347 N.E.2d A) Misleading Questions 1. Lonnie Mon......
-
People v. Brooks
...for her. Defendant was not placed upon the witness stand at Ahmed's trial in order to create a "perjury trap" (People v. Tyler, 46 N.Y.2d 251, 413 N.Y.S.2d 295, 385 N.E.2d 1224), or as a prospective defendant (Robinson v. United States, 401 F.2d 248, 250). In any event, whether the defendan......
-
Grand jury practice
...The Perjury Trap Prosecutors may not subpoena witnesses for the sole reason of establishing a perjury prosecution. [ See People v. Tyler, 46 N.Y.2d 251, 385 N.E.2d 1224, 413 N.Y.S.2d 295 (1978); Beale, Grand Jury Law and Practice , §11:11; but see United States v. Burke, 425 F.3d 400, 408 (......