People Ex Rel. Gross v. Sheriff of the City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

People Ex Rel. Gross v. Sheriff of the City of New York

96 N.E.2d 763, 302 N.Y. 173, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 762

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 18, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 96 N.E.2d 763 (People Ex Rel. Gross v. Sheriff of the City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People Ex Rel. Gross v. Sheriff of the City of New York, 96 N.E.2d 763, 302 N.Y. 173, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 762 (N.Y. 1951).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum.

Upon this record we cannot say that the status of the relator as a material witness in the pending Grand Jury proceeding instituted in December, 1949 — by which is being conducted a broad investigation into the existence in Kangs County of gambling, book-making, racketeering and all forms of organized crime — was terminated as a matter of law when, on December 4, 1950, he was arraigned in the Court of Special Sessions upon an information charging him with specific misdemeanors (Code Crim. Pro., § 618-b). The unchallenged statement of the District Attorney that relator freely admitted before the County Judge that he had bribed police officials, and that he could give evidence thereof, clearly justified his commitment as a material witness. The Grand Jury, having directed the District Attorney to file an information charging misdemeanors against the relator and many others, was entitled to a reasonable period of additional time within which to call relator in its continuing investigation as to other and more 'serious crimes. The relator may not select his own time for appearance before the Grand Jury. That body and the District Attorney have some discretion as to when to call relator and we cannot say, as a matter of law, that under the circumstances of this case such delay has been unreasonable. Nor can we say, in the circumstances disclosed, that the bail fixed as to the relator is excessive, or that the conditions under which he is detained are unreasonable. (People ex rel. Rao v. Adams, 296 N. Y. 231, 234.)

The order should be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum.

Upon this record we cannot say that the status of the relator as a material witness in the pending Grand Jury proceeding instituted in December, 1949 — by which is being conducted a broad investigation into the existence in Kangs County of gambling, book-making, racketeering and all forms of organized crime — was terminated as a matter of law when, on December 4, 1950, he was arraigned in the Court of Special Sessions upon an information charging him with specific misdemeanors (Code Crim. Pro., § 618-b). The unchallenged statement of the District Attorney that relator freely admitted before the County Judge that he had bribed police officials, and that he could give evidence thereof, clearly justified his commitment as a material witness. The Grand Jury, having directed the District Attorney to file an information charging misdemeanors against the relator and many others, was entitled to a reasonable period of additional time within which to call relator in its continuing investigation as to other and more 'serious crimes. The relator may not select his own time for appearance before the Grand Jury. That body and the District Attorney have some discretion as to when to call relator and we cannot say, as a matter of law, that under the circumstances of this case such delay has been unreasonable. Nor can we say, in the circumstances disclosed, that the bail fixed as to the relator is excessive, or that the conditions under which he is detained are unreasonable. (People ex rel. Rao v. Adams, 296 N. Y. 231, 234.)

The order should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 N.E.2d 763, 302 N.Y. 173, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-gross-v-sheriff-of-the-city-of-new-york-ny-1951.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack