Defendant Should Not Have Been Denied His Right to Testify Before the Grand Jury Because He Struck Out Waiver Provisions Not Required by Statute
The Court of Appeals determined defendant was denied his right to testify before the grand jury. The waiver presented to the defendant as a prerequisite to his testifying included the provisions required by statute, plus three additional provisions. The defendant struck out the additional provisions and signed the waiver. Because the defendant struck out the three additional provisions, he was not allowed to testify by the district attorney. The Court of Appeals held that the signed waiver was sufficient, without the struck-out provisions, because it included all the provisions required by statute. Therefore, defendant should have been allowed to testify:
CPL 190.50 (5) provides that a defendant must be permitted to testify before a grand jury if he serves upon the People a notice of intent to testify, appears at the designated time and place, and signs and submits a waiver of immunity pursuant to CPL 190.45. The parties do not dispute that defendant complied with the first two requirements of CPL 190.50 (5). Rather, the issue presented on this appeal is whether defendant complied with the third requirement of signing a waiver of immunity. CPL 190.45 (1) provides:
“A waiver of immunity is a written instrument subscribed by a person who is or is about to become a witness in a grand jury proceeding, stipulating that he [or she] waives his privilege against self-incrimination and any possible or prospective immunity to which he [or she] would otherwise become entitled, pursuant to section 190.40 . . . . “
The People presented defendant with a waiver of immunity form that included the provisions required by CPL 190.45, and three additional provisions that are not required under that statute. * * *
Defendant’s statutory right to testify before the grand jury was violated. This right “‘must be scrupulously protected'” … . Even with the deletions made by defendant, he complied with the waiver of immunity as required under CPL 190.45; that is, he left intact the provisions that stated he waived his privilege against self-incrimination and any immunity to which he would be entitled. Defendant was only required to meet the requirements of the statute, and nothing more to make a valid written waiver of immunity. The statute is clear, straightforward and concise. When a defendant meets the waiver of immunity requirements of CPL 190.45, he or she must be permitted to testify. People v Brumfield, 2015 NY Slip Op 01377, CtApp 2-17-15