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
THE DEFENDANT OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SURGEON’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED; PLAINTIFF LOST SIGHT IN HER RIGHT EYE AFTER CATARACT-REMOVAL SURGERY (FIRST DEPT).
ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND ENCROACHMENT ALLEGING DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN 1869 DEED DID NOT BENEFIT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE (FIRST DEPT).
CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
BAR AT ENTRANCE TO A SHOPPING-CART CORRAL WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT.
Labor Law 240 (1) Concerns Only Whether Proper Safety Equipment Was Provided—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant
International Bank With a Branch in New York Was Required to Comply with an Information Subpoena—“Separate Entity Rule” Which Prevents New York Courts from Enforcing Restraining Notices and Turnover Orders Directed to Branches of Foreign Banks Located Outside New York, Does Not Prevent New York Courts from Directing the New York Branch of a Foreign Bank to Comply with an Information Subpoena, Even though the Information Sought Relates to Foreign Branches–The Information Sought Is Available Through Electronic Searches Made by the New York Branch of the Bank
FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) IS A “POLICY ISSUE” WARRANTING DENIAL OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS AND THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BY CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES TRUSTS IS CONTROLLED BY NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE AND MUST BE TIMELY UNDER BOTH CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK LAW, SUIT WAS UNTIMELY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW (FIRST 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

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