From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wooley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 18, 1994
200 A.D.2d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 18, 1994

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A witness testified before the Grand Jury which later indicted the defendant and this witness consequently received immunity from prosecution by operation of law (see, CPL 190.40). This witness had not waived his right to immunity (see, CPL 190.40 [a]; 190.45 [1]) and the prosecutor informed the defendant's trial attorney of this, stating, "I have no waiver in my file, there was no waiver in this case".

On appeal, the defendant asserts without sufficient basis that this witness was in fact an accomplice and that this witness's receipt of immunity was equivalent to the prosecution's making of a "secret deal" with him. The defendant argues that the prosecution's failure to reveal the existence of this secret deal constituted misconduct in light of what defense counsel characterizes as the "confluence of Rosario, Brady and Giglio" (citing People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83; Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150).

It is true that the prosecution has the duty to disclose agreements made in order to encourage a potentially reluctant witness to testify (see, e.g., People v. Steadman, 82 N.Y.2d 1). However, there is no conceivable way to relate this rule of law to the particular facts of this case, because in this case there is no actual proof of such an agreement. Moreover, even assuming that it were reasonable to equate a witness's receipt of automatic immunity with an agreement within the scope of the rule of the Steadman case (supra), the fact remains that the witness's prior receipt of immunity or, more precisely, his previous failure to waive the immunity which had automatically been conferred on him, was a circumstance which was in fact revealed to defense counsel.

Measured against the standard set by the contention outlined above, the defendant's numerous remaining arguments are equally, or even more, devoid of merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Wooley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 18, 1994
200 A.D.2d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Wooley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT K. WOOLEY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 18, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
606 N.Y.S.2d 738

Citing Cases

People v. Irish

In the event that the People are or become aware of any material which is arguably exculpatory and they are…

People v. Yizar

In the event that the People are or become aware of any material which is arguably exculpatory and they are…