PEOPLE v. SCHUMACI (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Francis J. SCHUMACI, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: June 18, 1999

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HAYES, PIGOTT, JR., SCUDDER and BALIO, JJ.

Raymond A. Tarkowski, Utica, for plaintiff-appellant. Leslie R. Lewis, for defendant-respondent.

County Court properly dismissed the indictment on the ground that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective (see, CPL 210.20[1] [c] ). Defendant testified before the Grand Jury with his attorney at his side. During the proceeding, defendant attempted to confer with his attorney, but the prosecutor told defendant that he could not speak with his attorney. Thus, defendant was denied his right to seek the advice of counsel during his testimony in violation of CPL 190.52(2) (cf., People v. Diaz, 211 A.D.2d 402, 621 N.Y.S.2d 36, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 972, 629 N.Y.S.2d 732, 653 N.E.2d 628). That violation impaired the integrity of the Grand Jury proceeding, and there was “an articulable ‘likelihood of’ * * * prejudice” to defendant (People v. Adessa, 89 N.Y.2d 677, 686, 657 N.Y.S.2d 863, 680 N.E.2d 134; see, CPL 210.35[5]; People v. Huston, 88 N.Y.2d 400, 409, 646 N.Y.S.2d 69, 668 N.E.2d 1362; People v. Biro, 171 Misc.2d 165, 166-168, 653 N.Y.S.2d 481).

Order unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network