People v. Vosburg
| Decision Date | 19 November 1959 |
| Citation | 21 Misc.2d 372,193 N.Y.S.2d 158 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Leo H. VOSBURG, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Morris Marshall Cohn, Dist. Atty., Schenectady County, Schenectady, for the People. James H. Gould, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Schenectady, of counsel.
Harold Blodgett, Schenectady, for the defendant.
The defendant herein was for many years Commissioner of Public Welfare of the County of Schenectady and continued to hold such office until September 22, 1958, on which date he resigned. The following day he was called before the Grand Jury of the County of Schenectady, was sworn and testified as to certain matters. The defendant refused to sign a waiver of immunity and on certain other matters he refused to testify on constitutional grounds.
While this case was before Hon. Willard Best, Justice of the Supreme Court, permission was granted the defendant or his attorney to examine the Grand Jury minutes and exhibits. Defendant also moved in Supreme Court to dismiss the indictment, which motion was denied without prejudice to renew in Schenectady County Court. The motion was then brought on for argument on November 4, 1959. The defendant's counsel filed with the Court a memorandum of law urging the dismissal of the indictment. The District Attorney filed an affidavit in which he stated, in substance, that the defendant, while before the Grand Jury, amply protected his position and was not indicted in connection with any matter on which he testified, and that what testimony he gave in no way furnished any link in the chain of evidence resulting in the indictment.
While the Grand Jury minutes to which reference has been made entitle the investigation as 'People of the State of New York against John Doe' there is little doubt from a reading of the record that the investigation was directed specifically against the defendant above named, Leo H. Vosburg. The purport of all the questions, exhibits and testimony related to the operation of the office of the Commissioner of Public Welfare of the County of Schenectady and of the actions of this defendant while holding such public office. Many questions were directed to the defendant's handling of accounts of inmates of the County Home, a facility under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. While other employees of the Department of Public Welfare were questioned during the investigation, the main attention and emphasis were directed to the actions of the defendant.
On page 1 of the Grand Jury minutes the District Attorney advised the defendant that (Italics in the above quotation made by this Court.)
District Attorney Cohn advised the defendant of his privilege to refuse to answer any question which might ten to incriminate him and advised him to assert his constitutional privilege against incrimination.
The question, therefore, resolved itself into one of whether or not the defendant was compelled to be a witness against himself in violation of his constitutional rights.
A careful study of the testimony taken before the Grand Jury shows that the defendant did testify generally as to the records and accounts of one Pietro Della Penta, Sylvester Mastdera, the Estate of Joseph R. Wilson, Peter J. Quinlan and the Estates of Walter Swan and Anna Swan. He also gave general testimony as to other inmates' financial affairs out of which no indictments arose. In the course of the questioning the defendant was asked by the District Attorney specific questions concerning the Quinlan account, the Swan accounts and received responsive informatory answers to those queries. It should be noted that the defendant, at the request of the District Attorney, brought in to the Grand Jury certain bankbooks relating to the Della Penta, Mastdera and Quinlan accounts about which this investigation was concerned. It is apparent, therefore, that the defendant did, in fact, become a witness against himself. To say that he was a witness only and did not give any helpful information or connecting links to his indictment is to beg the question. While the defendant did refuse to answer some questions, the very form of the question put to the defendant in asking him whether he had committed an improper act, followed by his refusal to answer, may have prejudiced the defendant in the eyes of the Grand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Calbud, Inc.
...664, 257 N.Y.S.2d 763, affd 51 Misc.2d 263, 272 N.Y.S.2d 412, cert. den. 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.Ct. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592; People v. Vosburg, 21 Misc.2d 372, 193 N.Y.S.2d 158; see CPL 190.05, 190.65, subd. 1). In the ordinary case, it may be said that the Grand Jury has properly carried out thi......
-
People v. Garcia
...to determine guilt or innocence, [People v. Van Dusen, 56 Misc.2d 107, 287 N.Y.S.2d 741 (Ontario Co.Ct., 1967); People v. Vosburg, 21 Misc.2d 372, 193 N.Y.S.2d 158 (Schenectady Co.Ct., 1959) ]. In our criminal justice system, that is the duty of the petit jury, which assesses the evidence i......
-
State v. Sibilia, 2088
...173, 292 P.2d 982 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1956); People v. Laino, 10 N.Y.2d 161, 218 N.Y.S.2d 647, 176 N.E.2d 571 (Ct.App.1961); People v. Vosburg, 193 N.Y.S.2d 158 (Cty.Ct.1959); People v. Dudish, 5 Misc.2d 856, 166 N.Y.S.2d 810 (Cty.Ct.1957); Jenkins v. State, 65 Ga.App. 16, 14 S.E.2d 594 In order to......