Mr. Corletta was successful in combatting an unfair procedure frequently used by the Monroe County District Attorney's office in People v. C. J.(Supreme Court, Monroe County, 6/30/06).  In that case, Mr. Corletta's client, an 18 year -old with no prior criminal record, was charged with a serious felony weapons offense.  He was served with a Grand Jury Notice at his arraignment on a Friday morning, without counsel, which stated the case would be presented to the Grand Jury as a felony the following Tuesday, and that if he wanted to testify, he had to serve written notice.

The young man was incarcerated, and had no ability to hire an attorney over the weekend.  His parents were unable to meet with Mr. Corletta until Tuesday, which was too late, as the matter had already been presented to the Grand Jury and an Indictment voted.

Mr. Corletta filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, and successfully argued his client was not afforded reasonable time to retain and/or confer with counsel as to whether he should testify before the Grand Jury. Mr. Corletta made a simple fairness argument, stating it was unfair to expect an 18 year-old unrepresented, incarcerated Defendant to know what to do with a Grand Jury Notice, or to be able to consult with and/or hire counsel, within 3 days with an intervening weekend.

The Court granted Mr. Corletta's motion, stating thaat it was compelled to agree, given the particular "fact and circumstances here." This Decision marked a victory for the rights of unrepresented criminal Defendants treated unfairly by the District Attorney's "fast track" Grand Jury presentment policy.  This seeks to rush cases to the Grand Jury in their early stages at the local criminal Court level, in attempt to force more pleas, often without adequate consultation and/or discovery.  In this cse the "policy" backfired, because Mr. Corletta's client did not have the benefit of even being able to talk to an attorney prior to his case being presented to the Grand Jury.  Therefore, Mr. Corletta successfully defended his client's important right to consult with a  lawyer prior to presentment of a felony case to the Grand Jury, which also maintains the fairness and the integrity of the Grand Jury process itself.

Ontario County has been likened by many observers to a southern state, due to an extreme pro-prosecutorial atmosphere.  Therefore, defense victories are rare.  Nonetheless, Mr. Corletta showed the system still works when it functions properly in People v. H (Farmington Town Ct., 8/06).  In that case, Mr. Corletta's client was charged with Endangering the Welfare of a Child, because he was allegedly involved in a fight with his brother while his 14 year-old son was present.

At trial, the Assistant District Attorney incredibly did not present the testimony of the son, characterizing him as a "frightened child."  She also did not present any testimony from police or witnesses, with no explanation.

Instead, she presented the testimony of Defendant's ex-wife, who purportedly received a telephone call from the "child" while the fight was in progress, asking her to come and get him because his father was "fighting with Uncle Jimmy."  No description of how the fight started or any other details were offered.  Further, the ex-wife was obviously biased against the Defendant.

The People attempted to characterize the "child" as being "unavailable," although he lived with his mother pursuant to a Divorce Decree and Defendant did nothing to prevent his son from being present.  Cross-examination revealed that while the mother went straight to the police, she made no attempt to contact Child Protective or to suspend Defendant's visitation rights.  The People's "presentation" was limited to the mother's testimony, and the only evidence of the fight ws the "child's" hearsay statement and the mother's observation of the house when she arrived to pick him up.

Mr. Corletta made numerous objections to a "prosecution" predicated almost entirely on heaarsay.  The Court overruled Mr. Corletta's Crawford objection, holding the child's statement was an "excited utterance".

However, Mr. Corletta also argued the evidence was grossly insufficient, because no proof whatsoever was presented that the father's conduct was "knowing", as required under the statute.  No proof was presented that the father was even aware his son was present during the fight.  Nor was there any evidence the father's conduct started or continued the fight.

In short, the People presented no evidence the father "knowlingly" engaged in fisticuffs with his son present, which is required by the statute.  Accordingly, the Court, citing these deficiencies in the People's "proof", found Defendant not guilty.

Although only a misdemeanor case, this was a victory for our adversarial system of justice, which is predicated on confrotation of the evidence against an accused, not backdoor, hearsay presentations, characteristic of abuses in 16th century common-law England, which thwart the right of Confrontation.

The People asked the Court to "infer" that Defendant "knowlingly" engaged in such conduct with the "child" present.  Defendant argued this was more lik asking the Court to assume facts not in evidence.  The Court agree, citing the complete lack of proof as to Defendant's knowledge of this son's presence and his "knowingly" engaging in such conduct with his son present.

Further, disturbing was the Prosecutors vice of hyperbole and rhetoric, and her personal attacks on defense counsel for citing the deficiencies in the People's proof.  She argued that no "conscientious adult" would argue that a "frightened child" should have to come to Court and testify, when this is exactly what our Constitution requires.  Her attempt to circumvent Defendant's right to confront and cross-examine his accuser, and to justify it with emotional rhetoric, was most troublesome.

This case  pointed out the importance of the Court as the guardian of the rights of the accused and sent a message to the prosecution that it cannot just put on a case where the right to cross-examine one's accusers is circumvented without suffering the consequences.  This is precisely what the People did in this case by presenting only the testimony of the mother.  They obviously knew that if the so-called "vulnerable" 14 year old child was called as a witness, they might not get the type of proof necessary to get a conviction.  Therefore, they presented the hearsay testimony of the child through the mother, a person with an "axe to grind," hoping to circumvent Defendant's right of Confrontation .  It did not work because the Court saw through the People's "strategy" and did the right thing.

Mr. Corletta again demonstrated his knowledge of the law in obtaining a dismissal of the most serious count of the Indictment in People v. KA, et. al (Sup. Ct., Monore Cty., 10/18/06).

In that case, Mr. Corletta's client, along with two others, was charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon, and Criminal Possession of a Weapon with intent to use unlawfully against another, the second charge being a Class C Felony carrying a maximum period of imprisonment of 15 years.

Attacking the Grand Jury testimony, Mr. Corletta argued that all the People had shown, at best, was simple possession, and there was absolutely no proof, other than the use of evidentuary presumptions, demonstrating any such "intent".  In fact, it is this District Attorney's office standard practice to "bootstrap" this charge onto numerous simple possession cases, in order to force more guilty pleas.

The Court, examining the evidence, agreed and dismissed this count of the Indictment, holding that no such evidence had been presented.  This considerably reduced Mr. Corletta's clients potential exposure in this automobile possession case.

                                

Rochester 585-546-5072 16 W. Main St. Suite 240 Rochester, NY 14614	Farmington 585-742-2530 1235 Route 332 Farmington, NY 14425	After 11 PM Call 585-671-2279 If no answer please call 955-2404
view map	view map