You are here: / / REPORTER WHO INTERVIEWED A MURDER SUSPECT WAS ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF PROHIBITION...
, , ,

REPORTER WHO INTERVIEWED A MURDER SUSPECT WAS ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PREVENTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF A SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT THE SUSPECT’S TRIAL; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 79-H, THE NEW YORK SHIELD LAW, WHICH PROTECTS REPORTERS FROM SUBPOENAS WHEN THE REPORTER’S TESTIMONY IS NOT “CRITICAL OR NECESSARY” TO THE PEOPLE’S CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined the petitioner, a reporter who had interviewed a murder suspect (Ramsaran) prior to his conviction (which was overturned), was entitled to a writ of prohibition preventing the enforcement of a subpoena to testify at the suspect’s second murder trial  The People did not meet the criteria required by Civil Rights Law 79-h known as the New York Shield Law:

… [P]etitioner has made a sufficient showing that, if in error, respondent (County Court Judge) exceeded his jurisdiction and power in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the subpoena and in ordering her to testify to the information that she obtained in her capacity as a journalist in contravention of Civil Rights Law § 79-h. * * *

To overcome the qualified privilege afforded to petitioner under the New York Shield Law, it was incumbent on the People to make “a clear and specific showing that the news: (i) is highly material and relevant; (ii) is critical or necessary to the maintenance of a party’s claim, defense or proof of an issue material thereto; and (iii) is not obtainable from any alternative source” … . * * *

Even accepting that the information was “highly material and relevant” to the prosecution of Ramsaran, the People failed to establish that it was “critical or necessary.” There is a multitude of other evidence against Ramsaran, including the statements that he made during his telephone calls to 911, his girlfriend and to the police, as well as DNA evidence of the blood found on his clothes and the victim’s van. Contrary to the People’s contentions, Ramsaran’s statements during the interview do not contradict any of his other statements, but rather corroborate other available evidence against him … . Matter of Canning v Revoir, 2023 NY Slip Op 04623, Third Dept 9-14-23

Practice Point: This is a rare example of the granting of a writ of prohibition preventing a judge from enforcing a subpoena. The subpoena sought the testimony of a reporter who had interviewed a murder suspect. The People did not meet the criteria of the New York Shield Law which protects reporters from subpoenas when the reporter’s testimony is not “critical or necessary” to the People’s case.

 

You might also like
Issue Whether Son of Sam Law Supersedes Retirement and Social Security Law Protection of Pension Benefits Not Preserved for Review​
Evidence Insufficient to Support Neglect Finding, Criteria Explained/Repetition of Child’s Out-of-Court Statement Does Not Corroborate It
MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH NON-JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS PROPERLY GRANTED, ANY OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO AWAIT THE ACTUAL QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING.
PRECLUSION OF DEFENDANT’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL.
DEFENSE COUNSEL EXPLAINED HIS STRATEGIES BEHIND WAIVING THE HUNTLEY HEARING AND REFRAINING FROM CONSULTING AND PRESENTING EXPERTS IN THE DEFENDANT’S FIRST DEGREE RAPE TRIAL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, WHO WAS NOT EMPLOYED AT THE TIME COVID-PANDEMIC-RELATED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BECAME AVAILABLE, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE COVID-PANDEMIC BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED.
THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RATHER, THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED (THIRD 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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A DEFAULTING PARTY ADMITS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT; THEREFORE LIABILITY... IN ORDERING A NEW HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE, THE FIRST...