State of Cal. for Los Angeles County, Grand Jury Investigation, In re
Decision Date | 06 March 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 1088,1088 |
Citation | 471 A.2d 1141,57 Md.App. 804 |
Parties | In re STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION. Sept. Term 1983. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
James G. Maggio and H. Robert Scherr, Baltimore, for appellant.
Richard B. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Kurt L. Schmoke, State's Atty., Baltimore City, and Marshall Feldman, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore City, on brief, for appellee.
Argued Before GILBERT, C.J., and ADKINS and BLOOM, JJ.
This Court on October 7, 1983, issued a per curiam order affirming an order by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Karwacki, J.) that commanded John Rees to "appear before the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles, State of California ...." 1 We now explain why we affirmed the Circuit Court.
From the record we learn that the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles is inquiring into the unauthorized removal and theft of intelligence information from the Intelligence Division of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPDID) by Detective Jay Paul (Paul).
There was testimony in the record that Paul, who was assigned to the LAPDID, was under a contractual relationship with Western Goals Foundation in which he was paid thirty thousand dollars a year "to maintain a computer for Western Goals Foundation and develop a computer program to input information in the Western Goals computer." Detective Ben Lovato of the LAPD testified that, "Western Goals is a private intelligence gathering foundation ...." The computer for Western Goals was maintained in the "office of ... Paul's wife, in Long Beach, California."
Apparently Paul would feed information gleaned from the LAPDID records into the Western Goals computer.
The editor of Western Goals, John Rees, allegedly removed from the office of Paul's wife, "thirty discs and one tape which contained" LAPDID "intelligence information." Rees refused to turn over the discs and tape to the LAPDID and left California. Obviously, he made his way to Maryland.
Because the Grand Jury of the County of Los Angeles desired Rees's appearance before it, a subpoena was issued on August 9, 1983, which commanded that Rees present himself before that body on September 29, 1983. In addition to appearing personally before the grand jury, Rees was directed to produce:
Pursuant to the terms of the "Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings," 2 Judge James M. Ideman of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County certified that Rees's presence, together with the discs, tape and printouts, was "necessary, material and relevant to the issues" before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury. Judge Ideman further certified that Rees would be protected "from arrest or service of process, either civil or criminal ...."
The judge's certificate, along with the subpoena of the grand jury, was transmitted to Maryland. Rees resisted returning to Los Angeles. The State of California, acting through the state's attorney for Baltimore City, moved pursuant to Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 9-303 to have the Circuit Court for Baltimore City order Rees's appearance before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury. Following a hearing in the circuit court, Judge Karwacki issued that order, and Rees promptly appealed.
Because of the time restraints, we advanced oral argument.
In this Court Rees asserted four reasons why he believed that the order of the circuit court should be reversed. We shall discuss each of the arguments in the order in which Rees posited them to us, adding such additional facts as may be necessary.
"Under Section 9-302, hearsay evidence is not admissible to prove that appellant is a material and necessary witness."
As we have previously commented, Judge Ideman, a California jurist, certified that Rees and the tangible evidence allegedly possessed by Rees were "material, and relevant to the issues considered by the Los Angeles Grand Jury."
Some States have held that such a certification when supported by an affidavit is itself sufficient to require that the witness be delivered to the requesting State. See e.g. Epstein v. People of State of New York, 157 So.2d 705 (Fla.App.1963); In re Cooper, 127 N.J.L. 312, 22 A.2d 532 (1941); Superior Court, State of New Jersey v. Farber, 94 Misc.2d 886, 405 N.Y.S.2d 989 (1978). See also Ex parte Armes, 582 S.W.2d 434 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
Maryland, in Appel v. New York, 243 Md. 218, 220 A.2d 301 (1966), did not decide whether the issuance of the certificate of relevance and materiality was all that was needed, inasmuch as the Maryland hearing judge in Appel found from evidence that the witness was "material and necessary" to the New York probe.
In the instant case the certificate of Judge Ideman was bolstered by an affidavit from the deputy district attorney for Los Angeles County that Rees's appearance together with the discs, tape, and printouts was necessary, relevant and material to the grand jury's inquiry into the Western Goals's suspected covert connection to the LAPDID. The testimony of Detective Lovato before Judge Karwacki was largely hearsay, but we think no more than that is required in the instant case.
Courts Art. § 9-302 provides:
The Maryland Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in a Criminal Proceeding is related by rationale and principles of comity to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, Md.Ann.Code art. 41, §§ 16-43. 4 The principal difference is that in the latter the person demanded by the requesting State will be returned to that State to face criminal prosecution, while in the former the person requested is to testify and is specifically exempted from prosecution for matters that "arose before ... entrance into ... [the] State under the summons." Courts Art. § 9-304; California Penal Code § 1334.4.
It has been held in Maryland that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable to extradition proceedings. Shields v. State, 257 Md. 384, 263 A.2d 565 (1970); Johnson v. Warden, 244 Md. 384, 223 A.2d 584 (1966); Koprivich v. Warden, 234 Md. 465, 200 A.2d 49 (1964). 1 Wigmore Evidence § 4 (Tillers rev. 1983) declares, (Footnote omitted.)
This Court, speaking through Judge Morton in Campbell v. State, 10 Md.App. 406, 413, 271 A.2d 190 (1970), commented, "If we assume that ... [the] affidavit [of the Commonwealth of Virginia's attorney] was based entirely upon hearsay evidence ... we find no violation of [Campbell's] rights." Implicit in that remark is the conclusion that hearsay evidence is admissible in extradition proceedings. What was implicit in Campbell is explicit in In re David, 395 F.Supp. 803 (E.D.Ill.1975) ( ); Graham v. Vanderhoof, 185 Colo. 334, 524 P.2d 611 (1974) (hearsay admissible); People v. Miller, 74 Misc.2d 806, 342 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1973) ( ); President of the United States v. Kelly, 19 F.Supp. 730 (S.D.N.Y.1937) ( ); Klein v. Mulligan, 50 F.2d 687 (2nd Cir.1931) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tracy v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
... ... the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, A.R.S. §§ 13-4091 ... 224 Cal.App.3d 1405, 274 Cal.Rptr. 586 (1990), review ... he is the "subject of a pending federal grand jury investigation in Phoenix" that is apparently ... denied sub nom. Rees v. Los Angeles County, 467 U.S. 1205, 104 S.Ct. 2388, 81 L.Ed.2d ... ...
-
Davenport v. the State.
... ... at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination ... App.1995); In the Matter of Rhode Island Grand Jury Subpoena, 414 Mass. 104, 605 N.E.2d 840 ... State of Calif., etc., Grand Jury Investigation, 298 Md. 243, 469 A.2d 452 (1983) later ... of a court of record in the out-of-state county in which the witness is found. Id. Upon ... ...
-
Lewis v. State, 61, Sept. Term, 2016
... ... and, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County ("the circuit court"), the State, Respondent, ... On March 19, 2014, after an investigation, 158 A.3d 987 Lewis, who had been in Maryland to ... A jury found Lewis guilty of first-degree murder of ... 158 A.3d 994 In In re State of Cal. for Los Angeles Cty., Grand Jury Investigation ... ...
-
Yeary v. the State.
... ... at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination ... App.1995); In the Matter of Rhode Island Grand Jury Subpoena, 414 Mass. 104, 605 N.E.2d 840 ... State of Calif., etc., Grand Jury Investigation, 298 Md. 243, 469 A.2d 452 (1983) later ... Georgia trial court and the court in the county in which the out-of-state corporation is located ... ...