An admission is not enough…July 7, 2011

People v. my client-

It is not every day a DWI criminal complaint gets dismissed based upon facial insufficiency grounds.  I pulled off what I thought was a long shot.  I am still trying to figure out how I did this.

Read here.

6 Responses

  1. rich says:

    great job J. pretty friggin impressive. were you drunk when you wrote your papers?

  2. raymond zuppa says:

    Jason you did an excellent job but I can tell you how you did it; and its no mystery. You used hornbook law and had a judge that followed the law. See J.T. when a Court follows the law good things happen.

    I have dealt with the same issues and law from misdemeanor to major felony; as prosecutor and defense attorney.

    A Misdemeanor Information has to be solid because there is no Grand Jury. A Felony Criminal Court Complaint can pass muster even if riddled with hearsay because it has to be indicted. The indictment cures the deficiencies.

    The necessity of corroboration of an admission and of corroboration of accomplice testimony dogged many a prosecutor including myself.

    In fact the Operation BORIS that I constantly rail out about fell apart largely because there was absolutely no corroboration of accomplice testimony. So you had:

    Prosecutor: “What about him”
    Cooperator: “He did it”
    Prosecutor: And him
    Cooperator: He did it
    Prosecutor: And him
    Cooperator: Oh yeah
    Prosecutor: And this guy …
    Cooperator: … Without a doubt …
    Prosecutor: … No not him … that’s a court officer.

    When Judge Hudson looked at the transcripts of the GJ proceedings he gave DA Tommy “Tankleff did it, not my clients” Spota a call and said: “Houston we have a problem … dump these miserable indictments before I have the uneviable task of destroying your wonderful Fortune Magazine Article.”

  3. Adeel says:

    Another nice one, Jay. Impressive.

  4. Raymond Zuppa says:

    Jason I do have to once again say great job. Not many defense lawyers would have taken the time to thoroughly evaluate the accusatory document and address the issues.

    So while there is no mystery your zealousness won the day and that is the highest compliment that can be paid to an attorney.

    Meanwhile I would suggest that all attorney’s print out the decision which is an excellent treatise on not only how to challenge an accusatory instrument but also the key issues regarding corroboration. Again this is not only applicable to admissions but also to accomplice testimony.

    On an unrelated note to all I commend the movie “Good Night, and Good Luck.” It is a highly accurate portrayal of how Zuppa’s Pit contributor Edward R. Murrow took down McCarthy.

    • JT says:

      Ray – this is the one we spoke about where I told you the ADA would not move off forcing a plea on the A misdemeanor with probation and told me that they would not give me discovery absent an omnibus motion.

  5. Raymond Zuppa says:

    Oh yeah I knew that from the start. Did I have anything to say?

    Hey. That’s ultra cool. Good work bro. You see do it by the book just like you were a student in a legal clinic. If you have a good faith basis for making an argument you make the damn argument and not boilerplate either. I had an aggravated harrasment case at the Hofstra Law Clinic — you know you make the threat on the phone. We challenged the constitutionality of the Statute. Our argument was basically: How come the same conduct in person is only a violation but if you do it on the phone we get an A Mis.

    Did not go very far but the ADA was looking at a boat load of subpoenas etc. he gave up his hard position and let us out with the ACD.

    If you get a chance J.T. send me the papers. I will put them in a file with the decision and hand them out to some of the students at clinic functions that I attend.

    Bro you know who I would hire if I am in trouble — I think you do — don’t you.

Leave a Reply