Citation Numbers: 53 Misc. 2d 841
Judges: Gellinoff
Filed Date: 5/9/1967
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/5/2022
The defendant, a Supervisor with the Department of Buildings, has been indicted of six separate crimes of which four are perjury in the first degree. He has moved to dismiss the indictment and to suppress the testimony given by him before the Grand Jury. Preliminary to a trial, the court has conducted a hearing to determine the facts.
The following then ensued:
“ Q. Now, you understand everything I have said to you up to now? A. Yes.
“ Q. Are you prepared at this time to sign a waiver of immunity and testify? A. I am prepared to testify and cooperate fully with the Grand Jury. I am prepared to sign a waiver with the advice of counsel.
“ Q. In other words, you would like to speak to an attorney? A. Yes. ”
The defendant was not sworn, and was directed to appear the following day. He later appeared before the same Grand Jury and testified under a limited waiver of immunity after having consulted an attorney.
On January 20, 1966, he appeared before the Fifth January 1966 Grand Jury. Here, again, before being sworn, he was given the same information and his rights were explained to him in a manner similar to the explanation that had been made to him before the Fourth November 1965 Grand Jury.
The following then transpired :
“ Q. After consulting an attorney, you did sign- a waiver and testified before the Fourth November Grand Jury; that correct? A. Yes, sir.
“ Q. You signed a new waiver; is that correct, for this Grand Jury; is that correct, sir? A. Yes, sir.
“ Q. And did you do that voluntarily, understanding-everything that we just discussed? A. Yes, sir.
“ Q. And are you now ready to voluntarily testify under that waiver? A. Yes, sir. ”
After the foregoing was received in evidence at the hearing before the court, the defendant did not testify and offered no evidence.
On the basis of this record the court finds that defendant, after consultation with counsel, and with full knowledge of his rights, voluntarily signed the waiver and voluntarily testified. His testimony was not the result of coercion in fact or in law.
The facts in this case are entirely different from those in People v. Jones (53 Misc 2d 838) decided simultaneously herewith.
The court has read the Grand Jury testimony and finds the evidence sufficient. The motions are in all respects denied.