Nassau DA Accused of Using 'Fake Grand Jury Subpoena'

Is this kosher? In your opinion.

Nassau DA Accused of Using 'Fake Grand Jury Subpoena'

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investig...y-Accused-Fake-Subpoena-I-Team-470798983.html

Click to expand...

Well, the DA office probably has lots of forms and stuff so you can't really expect them to use the right one every time and, frankly, sometimes you need to drop the hammer on a witness who might blow your case if you want to keep your conviction record up to speed. These things happen and, while justice is important, so is a good track record of convictions if you want to be an Alderman or Governor or something. It's all about priorities and if you have to break a few eggs to get to the top just make sure they're not eggs anyone cares about.

No. Since witnesses in a grand jury are not allowed personal attorneys in the room, the DA hijacked a witness to their office without an attorney, threatened him with criminal charges, apparently didn't mirandize him (as they must by law if the individual is a suspect) and tried to intimidate him and his testimony.

The "old style form" excuse stinks to high heaven, because once they had him in their office all they had to do was tell him that there was no grand jury, they had questions for him, and he was entitled to not answer those questions and have an attorney with him while questioned. The fact that the judge didn't officially sanction this outrageous conduct leads me to question the competence and veracity of the judicial structure of this particular county.

DiAnna said:

No. Since witnesses in a grand jury are not allowed personal attorneys in the room, the DA hijacked a witness to their office without an attorney, threatened him with criminal charges, apparently didn't mirandize him (as they must by law if the individual is a suspect) and tried to intimidate him and his testimony.

The "old style form" excuse stinks to high heaven, because once they had him in their office all they had to do was tell him that there was no grand jury, they had questions for him, and he was entitled to not answer those questions and have an attorney with him while questioned. The fact that the judge didn't officially sanction this outrageous conduct leads me to question the competence and veracity of the judicial structure of this particular county.

Click to expand...

I believe that's only required if a person is formally arrested.

Lutherf said:

Well, the DA office probably has lots of forms and stuff so you can't really expect them to use the right one every time and, frankly, sometimes you need to drop the hammer on a witness who might blow your case if you want to keep your conviction record up to speed. These things happen and, while justice is important, so is a good track record of convictions if you want to be an Alderman or Governor or something. It's all about priorities and if you have to break a few eggs to get to the top just make sure they're not eggs anyone cares about.

Click to expand...

I don't buy the old form spiel.

radcen said:

I believe that's only required if a person is formally arrested.

Click to expand...

Or if he is a suspect. They flat out told him he was a suspect, and at that point miranda is a must. Cases have been thrown out because of the "oops, we forgot" defense.

This is the part that I found facepalm worthy...

Quote from original link:
Concerned about what happened, Raiser filed a Motion for Sanctions. Judge Christopher Quinn, in his response, called the district attorney’s conduct “legally questionable” but fell short of sanctioning prosecutors because Judge Quinn said it didn’t seem to scare the witness from testifying.

Click to expand...

Sooo... it was ok simply because it wasn't successful? Really? That's our standard? I'm sure some unsuccessful bank robbers would love to know this.

Sounds dirty & fraudulent as hell.

Misbehavior and malfeasance by prosecutors is behavior well established in this country, in many jurisdictions. That's one of the reasons so few people have faith in our system. Mostly Star Chambers and Kangaroo Courts is what we have.

DiAnna said:

Or if he is a suspect. They flat out told him he was a suspect, and at that point miranda is a must. Cases have been thrown out because of the "oops, we forgot" defense.

Click to expand...

It's when, in the totality of circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have believed that he was in custody, ie, that he was not free to leave.

General factors: place of interrogation, whether officers conveyed belief/opinion that person is a suspect, nature of interrogation (ie, aggressive vs. calm), whether the person was objectively free to have ended the interview at the time the incriminating statement was made.




Gives courts wiggle room to exclude traffic stops. Anyone stopped by a cop is objectively not free to leave, must answer certain questions, and any reasonable person in that position would not feel free to leave. Yet, they don't call that "custody", almost certainly out of some fear that this would require officers to give Miranda warnings every time they pulled someone over.

Ditto other situations where a person is quite literally not free to leave and everyone knows it, but in which the Courts want to let cops do what they want.

(It wouldn't in reality, though. They don't have to give you the warnings even if they formally arrest you. It's just that they don't get to use your statements without having given the warnings. The percentage of traffic stops in which an officer actually expects to use incriminating statements against the driver in a future criminal case has got to be miniscule and generally restricted to stuff like suspected DUI drivers and car chases. And even as to DUI suspects it wouldn't hamper the cops. They don't need the defendant's statements. Just give them a sobriety test, breathalyzer, and/or request a warrant for a blood draw.)

maybe that guy will hire a Mafia guy to kick the DA's ass, LOL ...................

Wrong. Guy should have been allowed attorney...