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
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SECOND DEPT).
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET MOVED TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER COMATOSE HUSBAND (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTOR’S REASONS FOR STRIKING TWO BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE PRETEXTUAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GRIEVANCE AND THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA); THE CITY’S PETITION TO PERMANENTLY STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ONLY CANCELLATION OF A MORTGAGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED THE NOTE AS WELL (SECOND DEPT).
JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, CONVICTION REVERSED.
THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SALARY PROMISED PLAINTIFF AT THE OUTSET WAS A MISTAKE WHICH HAD BEEN CORRECTED, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HER BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS UNDER AN “AT-WILL EMPLOYEE” THEORY WAS NOT APPLICABLE (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...