- against- Indictment No.: Defendant.

Similar documents
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS: CRIMINAL TERM: PART K-TRP. -against- Indictment No.: ,

People v Kenny 2017 NY Slip Op 33001(U) November 14, 2017 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Anne E. Minihan Cases posted

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS: CRIMINAL TERM: PART K-TRP. -against- Indictment No.: Defendant.

People v Williams 2018 NY Slip Op 33516(U) April 13, 2018 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: George E.

People v Rivera 2016 NY Slip Op 31193(U) May 23, 2016 Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County Docket Number: 2015NY Judge: Lyle

Packet Four: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 6: Introduction to Motions

- against- Indictment No.: Defendant.

People v Nemec 2018 NY Slip Op 33517(U) July 11, 2018 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Anne E. Minihan Cases posted

The People of the State of New York. against. Ismael Nazario, Defendant.

Re: PEOPLE V. Indictment No Dear Justice Wolfgang:

Fall, Criminal Litigation 9/4/17. Criminal Litigation: Arraignment to Appeal. How Do We Get A Case?

People v Paulino 2018 NY Slip Op 33518(U) January 3, 2018 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Anne E. Minihan Cases posted

Packet Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background

Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step

People v Stephens 2017 NY Slip Op 33021(U) February 28, 2017 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Anne E.

x

JOSEPH M. LATONA, ESQ. 716 BRISBANE BUILDING 403 MAIN STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK (716)

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 71 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. -against- PEOPLE'S VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM

Grand jury; proceedings and operation in general

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS: EVERYTHING A JUDGE NEEDS TO KNOW - ALMOST

People v Murray 2013 NY Slip Op 34063(U) March 8, 2013 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Barbara G.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 49 1

People v Rosario 2017 NY Slip Op 32989(U) February 27, 2017 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Barbara G.

People v Stephens 2017 NY Slip Op 33020(U) February 27, 2017 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Anne E.

Gerrald v City of New York 2016 NY Slip Op 31359(U) June 16, 2016 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Julia I.

NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES BENCHBOOK VOIR DIRE ON PRETRIAL AND IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

People v Alleyne 2014 NY Slip Op 33271(U) December 8, 2014 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 4856/2007 Judge: Bruce M. Balter Cases posted

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 96-CO Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Evelyn E. Queen, Trial Judge)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2005 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 822

People v Kirkland 2014 NY Slip Op 33773(U) July 25, 2014 County Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Barry E. Warhit Cases posted

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY APPELLANT, CASE NO

79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. Senate Bill 505

Section 1: Statement of Purpose Section 2: Voluntary Discovery Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2

Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department D51351 M/afa

Onilude v City of New York 2015 NY Slip Op 32176(U) October 8, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2009 Judge: Wilma Guzman Cases

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 15, 2015 at Knoxville

AFFIRMATION. Sample. 1. I am a member of the law firm,, attorneys for the accused herein. I make this affirmation in support of the within motion.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Matter of Miller v Roque 2016 NY Slip Op 30381(U) March 5, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /15 Judge: Jr., Alexander W.

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

PRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

Jan Hoth, for appellant. Meredith Boylan, for respondent. Innocence Project, Inc.; Legal Aid Society et al., amici curiae.

People v Fay 2017 NY Slip Op 31852(U) August 23, 2017 City Court of Rye, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Joseph L.

Amendments to Rules of Criminal Procedure Affecting District Court Procedures

The following provides a brief summary of the salient provisions relating to forensic DNA:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, CASE NO. 92,885 RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF ON THE MERITS

STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF CATTARAUGUS : JUSTICE COURT VILLAGE OF ELLICOTTVILLE

People v Santiago 2010 NY Slip Op 33168(U) November 5, 2010 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 11351/1989 Judge: Thomas J.

People v Rodriguez 2013 NY Slip Op 32900(U) July 30, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 07355/1997 Judge: Desmond A. Green Cases posted

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,718 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, NOAH DEMETRIUS REED, Appellant.

NOTE WELL: See provisions pertaining to convening an investigative grand jury noted in N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-622(h).

v No Wayne Circuit Court

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs March 1, 2005

v No Livingston Circuit Court

SERIOUS YOUTH OFFENDER PROCESS PAUL WAKE JULY 2014

REPORT ON LEGISLATION

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT BRIEF SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 2448

Motion for New Trial 07/01/14 Page 1 of 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1. Grounds for new trial Verdict contrary to evidence O.C.G.A

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed June 25, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Jon Stuart

Follow this and additional works at:

FILED AND ENTERED ON July 28, 2004 WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

Pavasaris v Incorporated Vil. of Saltaire 2016 NY Slip Op 31864(U) July 25, 2016 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: Judge: Peter

SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REVIEW OF POLICE DEPARTMENT ARREST AND INFORMATION RELEASE PROCEDURES: THREE CASES

CORRUPTING OR INFLUENCING A JURY (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-8) 1

Castro v New York City Police Dept NY Slip Op 33086(U) October 19, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /08 Judge: Barbara

People v Diven 2014 NY Slip Op 33772(U) June 5, 2014 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Judge: Richard A. Molea Cases posted

PART III - CALIFORNIA PENAL CODES

People v Kirk 2006 NY Slip Op 30620(U) March 22, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 2436/02 Judge: Ronald A. Zweibel Republished from

And for such other and further relief as to this Court may deem just and proper.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

The People of the State of New York. against. Joseph Bonelli, Defendant.

Case 2:10-cr MHT -WC Document 372 Filed 01/26/11 Page 1 of 8

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 100 1

Sanchez v City of New York 2017 NY Slip Op 32185(U) September 13, 2017 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Julia I.

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

HONORABLE JOSEPH ANTHONY GROSSO ACTING JUSTICE. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Ind. No. N10344/03

Appellate Division, Third Department, People v. Young

TRAFFIC COURT RULES FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ADOPTED BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL FEBRUARY 1, 1979 EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 3, 1979

Eyewitness identification is evidence received from a witness who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court.

OUTLINE OF CRIMINAL COURT PROCESS

Steven M. Sharp, for appellant. Bruce Evans Knoll, for respondent. This appeal raises the question whether a defendant can

Court of Appeals of New York, People v. Ramos

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No.: 03-K UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2018

RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR BEST PRACTICES IN INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

An Introduction. to the. Federal Public Defender s Office. for the Districts of. South Dakota and North Dakota

ALABAMA VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS1

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) CRIMINAL NO GAO ) DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV )

79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. Senate Bill 64

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

Investigations and Enforcement

Attorneys handling criminal appeals will undoubtedly encounter trial. records reflecting unilateral decisions by defense counsel which prevented their

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

Case 3:09-cr GHD-SAA Document 49 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Case 3:16-cr TJC-JRK Document 31 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID 102

Transcription:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CRIMINAL TERM: PART K-19 P R E S E N T: HON. SEYMOUR ROTKER, Justice. -----------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - against- Indictment No.: 1812-04 HECTOR TORRES, Motion: Omnibus Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------X RUSSELL ROTHBERG, ESQ. For the Defendant RICHARD A. BROWN, D.A. BY: ERIC ROSENBAUM, A.D.A. Opposed Upon the foregoing papers, and due deliberation had, the motion to dismiss based upon insufficient evidence before the grand jury (CPL 210.30) is granted with leave to represent. Kew Gardens, New York Dated: September 14, 2004 SEYMOUR ROTKER JUSTICE SUPREME COURT 1

SUPREME COURT, QUEENS COUNTY CRIMINAL TERM, PART K-19 ---------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK BY: SEYMOUR ROTKER, J.S.C. - against - Indictment No. 1812-04 HECTOR TORRES, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------X DECISION AND ORDER Defendant is charged by indictment with the crimes of Rape in the First Degree (PL 130.35(1)), Sexual Abuse in the First Degree (PL 130.65(1)), Burglary in the First Degree (PL 140.30(3)), and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (PL 260.10(1). By omnibus motion, dated August 1, 2004, defendant seeks an order dismissing each count of the indictment pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 210.25 and 210.35, inspection and release of the grand jury minutes and charge, reduction of charges, and other relief. Upon a review of the grand jury minutes, the Court grants dismissal of the indictment with leave to represent. Thus, the other branches of defendant s motion can be renewed should a new indictment be obtained by the prosecution. MOTION TO INSPECT AND DISMISS [CPL 210.30(1)(2)] The defendant s motion to inspect the grand jury minutes is granted. Inspection is mandatory absent a showing of good cause to deny the requested relief. The People have consented to an in camera inspection. The Court has conducted an in camera inspection of the grand jury minutes. 2

MOTION FOR RELEASE OF GRAND JURY MINUTES AND CHARGE [CPL 210 (3)] Defendant s motion seeking release of the transcripts of the grand jury minutes and of the legal instructions provided by the prosecutor is denied. Grand jury proceedings are secret and should not be disclosed absent a compelling and particularized need for access. CPL 190.25(4); see People v. Robinson, 98 N.Y.2d 755, N.Y.S.2d 843(2002); Matter of the District Attorney of Suffolk County 58 N.Y.2d 436 (1983); Ruggiero v. Fahey, 103 A.D.2d 65, 478 N.Y.S.2d 336(2d Dept. 1984). The defendant has made no factual showing as to demonstrate a compelling and particularized need sufficient to overcome the presumption of confidentiality. The Court finds that the release of the minutes in unnecessary to assist it in making its determination as to the sufficiency of the evidence and legal instructions, CPL 210.30(2) and (3). The Court s authority to release grand jury testimony is set forth in CPL 210.30(3) which provides that [i]f the court, after examining the minutes, finds that the release of the minutes,..., to the parties is necessary to assist the court in making its determination on the motion, it may release the minutes, or such portions thereof, to the parties. The same section also provides that such release of shall be limited to that grand jury testimony which is relevant to support a charge or charges contained in the indictment. Pursuant to CPL 210.35, the Court can make a determination as to whether the grand jury proceeding failed to conform to the requirements of article one hundred and ninety to such a degree that the integrity thereof is impaired. As noted, the Court has inspected the minutes with respect to this section and finds no errors that would warrant any relief. Motion to Dismiss the Indictment or for Reduction of the Charges Contained Therein on the Ground of Insufficient Grand Jury Evidence [CPL 210.20, 210.30] Defendant has moved pursuant to CPL 210 to dismiss the indictment on the ground of insufficiency of grand jury evidence to support the allegations therein. It is the Court s finding that the evidence presented, is legally insufficient to establish an evidentiary connection between the DNA profile initially introduced and the identity of this defendant as the perpetrator of the crime under the applicable grand jury standards of reasonable cause to believe and legally 3

sufficient evidence. In its grand jury presentment, the prosecution failed to establish reasonable cause to believe that the accused committed the offenses charged. See People v. Sabo, 179 Misc.2d 396, 687 N.Y.S.2d 513 (N.Y. County 1998). 1 Upon a review of the grand jury minutes, the prosecution establishes a DNA profile of a particular unknown suspect. Nevertheless, the prosecution s later attempt, upon reopening the case, fails to connect the established profile to the within defendant. 2 Here, when presenting the additional evidence to the grand jury 3, the prosecution recalled the forensic expert who initially testified and established that the DNA profile obtained from the complainant s clothing only matched one out of a trillion individuals. 4 Upon being recalled, the expert testified that he was now in possession of additional information related to lab number FB04099 5 and that he now knew the name of the individual whose profile he testified about previously. The individual s name was Hector Torres AKA Hector Tito, as testified to in the grand jury. Moreover, the witness stated that a New York State Identification Number is attached to this individual and provided the NYSID number to the grand jurors. The witness testified that the information he possessed upon testifying for the second time before the grand jury was obtained in conjunction with The New York State Forensic Services. He then opines that 1 Legally sufficient evidence means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant s commission thereof.... CPL 70.10. Reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that is it reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it. Id. 2 The People reopened the case after an indictment was found but, before filing the indictment, to present additional evidence. 3 The prosecution has provided the Court with a copy of the slip from the initial grand jury presentment which indicates that a true bill was found. 4 The witness also testified that the known population is only approximately five billion. 5 This witness had previously testified that the forensic lab number related to the case under voucher number F530380 was FB040997. 4

Hector Torres is the donor of the DNA profile obtained from the victim s T-shirt. Fatally absent from the presentation is a nexus between the named defendant and the DNA profile. Here, no testimony was presented to establish that the NYSID number testified to was based upon some type of comparison to defendant. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented that a DNA sample was actually taken from the named defendant at a particular time and tested which establishes his identity as the perpetrator. The only connection to the defendant here is the testimony of the expert and he merely testifies in a conclusory fashion that the NYSID number of this defendant matches the DNA profile. Therefore, without having established a properly testified to evidentiary link of the DNA from the crime scene to this defendant, it was not reasonably likely for the grand jurors to find that this particular individual committed the established crimes. Thus, the indictment is dismissed with leave to represent. Defendant may renew his other applications should a new indictment be filed. Kew Gardens, New York Dated: September 14, 2004 SEYMOUR ROTKER JUSTICE SUPREME COURT 5