Court Opinion

ID: 9786355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:54:33.152322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:44.616536
License: Public Domain

Memorandum.

Upon this record we cannot say that the status of the relator as a material witness in the pending Grand Jury proceeding instituted in December, 1949 — by which is being conducted a broad investigation into the existence in Kangs County of gambling, book-making, racketeering and all forms of organized crime — was terminated as a matter of law when, on December 4, 1950, he was arraigned in the Court of Special Sessions upon an information charging him with specific misdemeanors (Code Crim. Pro., § 618-b). The unchallenged statement of the District Attorney that relator freely admitted before the County Judge that he had bribed police officials, and that he could give evidence thereof, clearly justified his commitment as a material witness. The Grand Jury, having directed the District Attorney to file an information charging misdemeanors against the relator and many others, was entitled to a reasonable period of additional time within which to call relator in its continuing investigation as to other and more 'serious crimes. The relator may not select his own time for appearance before the Grand Jury. That body and the District Attorney have some discretion as to when to call relator and we cannot say, as a matter of law, that under the circumstances of this case such delay has been unreasonable. Nor can we say, in the circumstances disclosed, that the bail fixed as to the relator is excessive, or that the conditions under which he is detained are unreasonable. (People ex rel. Rao v. Adams, 296 N. Y. 231, 234.)
The order should be affirmed.