You are here: / / Defendant Not Afforded Right to Testify Before Grand Jury—Indictment...

Defendant Not Afforded Right to Testify Before Grand Jury—Indictment Dismissed

The Second Department determined the indictment must be dismissed (without prejudice) because the defendant was not afforded his right to testify before the grand jury:

CPL 190.50(5) provides that a defendant has a right to appear and testify before a grand jury if he or she serves written notice of his or her intent to do so upon the District Attorney before an indictment is filed. “[T]he opportunity to testify prior to any Grand Jury vote is qualitatively different from and more advantageous than the opportunity to testify . . . after the Grand Jury ha[s] committed itself to a vote based on the prosecution’s ex parte presentment of evidence” … . Thus, a defendant who provides timely notice “prior to the prosecution’s presentment of evidence and prior to the Grand Jury vote on an indictment [is] entitled to testify before the vote” … .

Where, as here, the defendant has been arraigned upon an undisposed felony complaint, the People must notify the defendant of the grand jury proceeding and accord him or her a reasonable time to appear (see CPL 190.50[5][a]…). Here, the People’s notice pursuant to CPL 190.50 indicated that the defendant was “scheduled to testify” before the grand jury on June 8, 2010, and that his testimony was required to have been given before 5:00 p.m. on that date. The record reveals that the defendant provided the People with written notice of his intent to testify before the grand jury pursuant to CPL 190.50, at the latest, by 3:37 p.m. on June 7, 2010. Thus, the defendant provided the People with the requisite notice more than 24 hours in advance of his proposed appearance. Under these circumstances, the defendant was entitled to testify prior to the grand jury’s vote. People v Ellison, 2014 NY Slip Op 04957, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED (1) HE WAS MISADVISED THAT HIS GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEPORTATION AND (2), HAD HE BEEN PROPERLY ADVISED, A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Note and Mortgage Void as Usurious
AVILA WAS INJURED WHEN HER SPOUSE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR AND STRUCK A PARKED CAR; THE POLICY EXPRESSLY STATED COVERAGE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE INSURED’S SPOUSE; IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION THE INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO COVER THE INSURED’S SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EPIDURAL INJECTIONS WERE DONE NEGLIGENTLY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SIGNED A CONSENT FORM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
33 HOUR DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT, UNDER THE FACTS, DID NOT RENDER STATEMENT INVOLUNTARILY MADE.
Primary Assumption of Risk Precluded Lawsuit
Purported Deed Was Actually an Usurious Mortgage—All Related Transfers and Encumbrances Void
DEFENDANT WAS A GOOD-FAITH PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION OF SOLE OWNERSHIP; DEFENDANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE RECORD OWNER AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE UNRECORDED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RECORD OWNER AND PLAINTIFF WHO RESIDED ON THE PROPERTY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A NOTICE OF PENDENCY BEFORE DEFENDANT RECORDED THE DEED HAD NO EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Court’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Inspect His Laptop Computer, Evidence... Court’s Failure to Conduct an Inquiry After Learning of a Juror’s...