You are here: / / RIGHT TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS NOT A RIGHT RESERVED TO A DEFENDANT,...
,

RIGHT TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS NOT A RIGHT RESERVED TO A DEFENDANT, IT IS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO BE MADE BY COUNSEL.

The First Department, in affirming defendant’s conviction, noted that defendant was not deprived of a right to testify before the grand jury when his attorney, against defendant’s wishes, withdrew the notice of intent to testify. The right to testify before the grand jury is not among the rights reserved to a defendant:

 

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, made on the ground that he was deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury when, against defendant’s wishes, his counsel withdrew defendant’s notice of intent to testify. We decline to revisit our prior holdings … that the right to testify before the grand jury is not among the rights reserved to a defendant, but is among the rights whose exercise is a strategic decision requiring “the expert judgment of counsel” … . People v Cintron, 2016 NY Slip Op 00618, 1st Dept 2-2-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY IS NOT RESERVED TO A DEFENDANT)/GRAND JURIES (RIGHT TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY IS NOT RESERVED TO A DEFENDANT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY IS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO BE MADE BY COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT)

You might also like
INFORMATION ALLEGED BY THE DEFENDANTS TO HAVE REVEALED FRAUD IN THE SALE OF CREDIT DEFAULT OBLIGATIONS AT A TIME WHICH RENDERED THE CURRENT FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ACTION TIME-BARRED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A DISMISSAL AT THE PLEADING STAGE.
BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT).
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE, STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE.
Allegation Corporation Was Deliberately Rendered Judgment Proof by Parent Corporation Is Sufficient to Support Action in Equity to Pierce the Corporate Veil
IN ORDERING A NEW HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THE INADEQUACY OF THE PROOF PRESENTED BY ASSIGNED COUNSEL AT THE FIRST HEARING AND CONSIDERED “NEW” FACTS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND PREJUDICE ISSUES IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE GUILTY PLEA; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT). ​
15 MONTH DELAY IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF DUE PROCESS.
Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Negligence Precluded Her Reliance on the Doctrine of Mutual Mistake to Rescind a Valid Oral Contract

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLAIMANT PROPERLY COMPENSATED FOR WORK-RELATED STRESS. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S...