Pitman, In re
| Decision Date | 31 May 1960 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Compelling the Appearance of One Arthur PITMAN, a Resident of the State of New York, Before the Superior Court of New Jersey (Criminal Division), Hudson County, State of New Jersey. |
| Court | New York Court of General Sessions |
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City, for the people, by Asst. Dist. Atty., Lawrence Bernstein, New York City.
G. J. McMahon, New York City, for Arthur Pitman.
This is an application under § 618-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an order directing the respondent, a resident of New York State, to appear as a witness in a criminal prosecution in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County.
The certificate of a judge of that court states, inter alia, that there is pending therein a criminal prosecution in which the respondent is a necessary and material witness, that his presence will be required for a total of five days and that the laws of New Jersey will give him protection from arrest and the service of civil and criminal process in connection with matters which arose before his requested attendance in the state of New Jersey pursuant to the requested summons.
The Assistant Prosecutor of Hudson County testified at the hearing on the instant application that the respondent in July, 1959 had appeared, signed a waver of immunity, and thus testified voluntarily before the Hudson County Grand Jury with respect to certain allegedly unlawful payments made by him to a union official, the defendant in the prosecution in question; that the Prosecutor has until now refrained from prosecuting respondent and intends to refrain from doing so because the State of New Jersey views the respondent as the victim of the alleged crime, but that he intends to prosecute the union official, whom that State views as the perpetrator thereof. Moreover, the Assistant Prosecutor testified that, if it were the Prosecutor's intention to prosecute respondent, he could do so on the basis of respondent's earlier testimony before the Hudson County Grand Jury and without his sought-for testimony at the forthcoming trial; that actually respondent's testimony is necessary for the prosecution of the union official and that, indeed, an indictment of the respondent in addition to the union official would render impossible the successful prosecution of either.
The court is satisfied from the certificate, which under the statute it must treat as prima facie evidence of all facts stated therein, and the testimony and argument at the hearing that the application for the attendance of respondent as a witness is made in good faith and that the requirements of § 618-a have been met.
Respondent, however, raises the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tracy v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
... ... See State v. Schreuder, 712 P.2d 264, 274 (Utah 1985) (witness's claimed intention to invoke the fifth amendment privilege in the requesting court is not a ground for finding the testimony is not material). The privilege is a matter to be ruled on by the court conducting the trial. In re Pitman, 26 Misc.2d 332, 201 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1002 (N.Y.Gen.Sess.1960) (where New York witness was compelled to appear in New Jersey criminal prosecution, questions about his privilege against self-incrimination would have to be determined in the New Jersey court, not in the New York court issuing the ... ...
-
Rhode Island Grand Jury Subpoena, Matter of
... ... Superior Court, 168 Ariz. 23, 43, 810 P.2d 1030 (1991), citing In re Cal. Grand Jury Investigation, 57 Md.App. 804, 812, 471 A.2d 1141, cert. denied sub nom. Rees v. Los Angeles County, 467 U.S. 1205, 104 S.Ct. 2388, 81 L.Ed.2d 346 (1984). See In re Pitman, 26 Misc.2d 332, 333, 201 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (1960). Holding otherwise would unnecessarily duplicate judicial determination of privilege claims. 5 ... Page 845 ... Next, Doe argues that he comes within the exception to the general rule of nonappealability of interlocutory orders ... ...
-
State Grand Jury Investigation into Corruption in Lindenwold New Jersey Area, Matter of
... ... We do ... * * * accept the representations of the Attorney General, made by three of his deputies, that appellants' cooperation is being sought in good faith in the capacity of witnesses and not targets. * * * ... See In re Pitman, 26 Misc.2d 332, 201 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (1960). Compare In re Mayers, 9 Misc.2d 212, 169 N.Y.S.2d 839 (1957) ... 3. We view appellants' arguments that the difference in kind between New York's grant of immunity ('transactional'--McKinney's C.P.L. §§ 190.40, 190.35 and 50.10) and New ... ...
-
Epstein v. People of State of N. Y.
... ... Since the certificate is in the words of the statute, we think that it is sufficient. It is usual for certificates of this type to follow the statute; [See In re Pitman, 26 Misc.2d 332, 201 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (Ct.Gen.Sess.N.Y.County 1960)] and inasmuch as the certificate is issued by a judge of the requesting state who has satisfied himself as to the sufficiency of the evidentiary facts to establish the necessary conditions for the making of the certificate, it is not ... ...