Opinion
Argued April 21, 1969
Decided May 14, 1969
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, JOHN M. MURTAGH, J.
Nathan Z. Dershowitz, Milton Adler and Julia P. Heit for appellant in the first above-entitled action.
Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney ( Lewis R. Friedman, Michael R. Juviler and William C. Donnino of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General ( Maria L. Marcus and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), as intervenor pro se, in the first above-entitled action.
Julia P. Heit, Milton Adler and Nathan Z. Dershowitz for appellant in the second above-entitled action.
Thomas J. Mackell, District Attorney ( Cornelius J. O'Brien of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled action.
MEMORANDUM. The judgments appealed from should be affirmed. Each of these defendants was tried and adjudicated a youthful offender (Code Crim. Pro., pt. VI, tit. VII-B) prior to May 20, 1968, the date on which the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Duncan v. Louisiana ( 391 U.S. 145). Since the court later held that that decision was to be given "only prospective application" ( De Stefano v. Woods, 392 U.S. 631, 633), we do not reach the question whether the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution requires that the right to trial by jury be accorded to persons who are proceeded against as youthful offenders. (Cf. Code Crim. Pro., § 913-g, subd. 3; § 913-h.)
Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL and JASEN concur; Judge KEATING taking no part.
In each case: Judgment affirmed in a memorandum.