Court Opinion

ID: 9787466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:17:43.486961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:56.504005
License: Public Domain

Jasen, J.
(concurring). The court announces a salutary rule to avert unwarranted delay in criminal prosecutions. Central to the procedure is the requirement that the defendant and counsel proceed with “ reasonable diligence ” in making a pretrial suppression motion. (CPL 710.40.) In my view, reasonable diligence imports that the motion will be made early in the pretrial proceedings. This should be feasible in the vast majority of cases.
Early pretrial consideration of evidentiary problems not only insures the integrity of the trial when reached, but avoids unnecessary delay in reaching trial or in otherwise disposing of the case. In this regard, I would emphasize the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases and defense counsel’s obligation to promote an expeditious, as well as a fair, determina*468tian of the charges and related evidentiary matters. Abuse of procedure and dilatory tactics are unprofessional and are not to he condoned.
Judges Burke, Jones and Wachtler concur with Chief Judge Fuld; Judge Jasen concurs in a separate opinion; Judges Breitel and Gabrielli taking no part.
Order reversed and new trial ordered.