Stevens v. Marks
| Decision Date | 30 October 1964 |
| Citation | 253 N.Y.S.2d 401,22 A.D.2d 683 |
| Parties | Application of James T. STEVENS, Petitioner, for an order pursuant to Section 7801 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, etc., v. Honorable Charles MARKS, Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. P. Schofield, New York City, for petitioner.
M. R. Stack, New York City, for respondent.
Before BREITEL, J. P., and VALENTE, STEVENS, EAGER and BASTOW, JJ.
Motion to dismiss petition granted and proceeding unanimously dismissed, without costs. When petitioner, a lieutenant in the Police Department of the City of New York, first appeared before the Grand Jury of New York County--which was investigating allegations of bribery and corruption in the Police Department--he signed a limited waiver of immunity. When recalled before that Grand Jury on July 22, 1964, petitioner refused to answer any questions claiming his privilege against self-incrimination. Petitioner was then brought before a Justice of the Supreme Court who directed petitioner to answer. When petitioner persisted in his refusal to answer, he was held in criminal contempt and sentenced accordingly. Petitioner attacks the validity of the waiver of immunity he signed, and contends that in the absence of a valid waiver he was within his constitutional rights in refusing to answer before the Grand Jury. The adjudication for contempt must be sustained, however, irrespective of any substance to petitioner's argument as to the continued effectiveness of the waiver of immunity. In Regan v. New York, 349 U.S. 58, 75 S.Ct. 585, 99 L.Ed. 883, it was clearly held that one circumstanced as petitioner herein was required to testify before the Grand Jury. If the waiver were invalid, petitioner would have received immunity from prosecution under Sections 381 and 2447, Penal Law. On the other hand, if the waiver of immunity is still valid, petitioner no longer has any privilege to refuse to testify. Hence, the claimed invalidity of the waiver would be a defense in any subsequent prosecution but not a sufficient excuse to refuse to testify. In view of our conclusion that Regan v. New York is controlling here, we do not reach the question as to the effect ofMalloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653, and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, on the constitutionality of Article I, Section 6, of the New York State Constit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stevens v. Marks Stevens v. Closkey
-
United States v. McCloskey
...239 F. Supp. 419 ... UNITED STATES of America ex rel. James T. STEVENS, Petitioner, ... John J. McCLOSKEY, for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into his detention by the Sheriff of New York City ... United States ... 4 Stevens v. Marks, 22 App.Div.2d 683, 253 N.Y.S.2d 401. (1st Dep't 1964) ... 5 Prior to surrender on this second conviction, petitioner sought to ... ...
-
People v. Masiello
... ... 439, 79 S.Ct. 1257) ... More relevant is Stevens v. Marks (383 U.S. 234, 86 S.Ct. 788, 15 L.Ed.2d 724, revg. 22 A.D.2d 683, 253 N.Y.S.2d 401, mot. for lv. to app. den. 15 N.Y.2d 483, 257 N.Y.S.2d ... ...
-
United States v. McCloskey
...345 F.2d 305 (1965) ... UNITED STATES of America ex rel. James T. STEVENS, Petitioner-Appellant, ... John J. McCLOSKEY, as Sheriff of the City of New York, New York, Respondent-Appellee ... No. 453, Docket 29595 ... Stevens v. Marks, 22 A.D.2d 683, 253 N.Y.S.2d 401 (1964). The Court, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Regan v. People of State of New York, supra, held that ... ...