2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case B 2012 Raphael Ortega, Appellant v. The People of the State of New York, Respondents Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department New York Facts of the Case: In February 2001, best friends Raphael Ortega and Atrion Raimundi attended the whitest wedding known to man in Saratoga New York. In fact they were the only two minorities at the event which even included the people working. Atrion is a 6'3", light skinned, clean shaven African American with a shaved head weighing in at 220 pounds on a good day. Raphael is of mixed race of Puerto Rican/Dominican descent with dark skin, a full head of hair, goatee, approximately 5'9" and 160 pounds wet at least until he gained ten pounds studying for the bar. Also attending the wedding was Flynn Jebb who was Raphael’s ex (after a very bitter breakup) and Atrion’s current date. During the wedding Atrion approached “Slick Sam” the D.J. and requested the Electric Slide. Five minutes later Raphael approached Sam and asked for the Cha Cha Slide and Sam replied, you just requested electric slide. Raphael, who was angry, replied, no that was the other black guy. Later that evening many wedding guests saw a person they described as a minority in and around “Slick Sam”’s DJ equipment. At the end of the night “Slick Sam” reported that his $5000 digital mixer was missing and told the police that the “other black guy” must of stolen it. He later identified Raphael in a line up. Two other people identified Raphael as the minority near the dance floor and one other witness was unsure. The police also interviewed Flynn who stated Atrion was with her most of the evening but was also constantly on the dessert line (which was not near the dance floor) and that she saw Raphael on the dance floor. Atrion stated he was mostly on the desert line and had the waistline to prove it. He also stated Raphael loved to dance and no matter what wedding they were at he would be found on the dance floor or on the dessert line with him. Two days before trial Raphael’s attorney contacted the prosecutor and told him that they would be calling Atrion as an alibi witness. The matter proceed to trial. Raphael’s attorney’s opening argument centered around Atrion providing an alibi for Raphael that involved a lot of high calorie desserts. Raphael’s attorney also subpoenaed Atrion as a defense witness. Atrion either misread the subpoena or the subpoena was wrong and showed up to trial on the first day and was told to come back when it was the defense case. Slick Sam testified he had not really gotten Atrion and Raphael mixed up, it was only he did not like the Cha Cha slide so he was trying to anger Raphael. Flynn Jebb testified consistent with the above and included that Raphael had come back to their table at the wedding and retold the “other black guy” story to the other guests who made him even angrier because they could not stop laughing. No one testified to seeing Atrion and Raphael together on the dessert line but several people remember Atrion eating an entire cake. The People rested at 3p.m. and Judge Colleen Murtagh asked Raphael’s attorney to call his first witness. Atrion was not in the courtroom and the attorney asked for an adjournment to the next day. The next day the attorney made the representation that he had spoken to Atrion on the phone and he had agreed to be there first thing in the morning. Judge Murtagh then asked where was Atrion and the lawyer did not have an answer. The lawyer asked for a second adjournment until two p.m. which was granted. At 2 p.m. the attorney made the representation that he had talked to Atrion’s family who had stated he had missed the bus because he could not run fast enough and they were not sure how far he would have to walk to court. Raphael’s attorney asked for a material witness warrant which was denied. Judge Murtagh also denied the next request for a continuance and made Raphael proceed. Raphael conferred with his counsel for about ten minutes after which Judge Murtagh became impatient and asked if the defendant was going to testify. The attorney asked for a 15 minute break, which was granted and then for another 30 minute break which was denied. Judge Murtaugh muttered something like this trial needs to end in the next six months. Then Raphael testified that Atrion was with him on the dessert line for significant times during the wedding and the prosecution cross him on the fact that Atrion only came to light two days before the trial. Raphael was convicted and sentence to one year in jail. Raphael now appeals the judge’s decision to deny his third request for a continuance on the grounds that Judge Murtaugh’s denial of the two motions for adjournment violated his rights to call witnesses on his behalf and to effectively confer with his counsel. The following cases are the only cases you may use in your brief. People v Adair, 84 A.D.3d 1752 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2011) People v. Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473 (N.Y. 1973) People v. Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402 (N.Y. 1977) People v. Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698 (N.Y. 1984) 49
Team 15 v 60 RAPHAEL ORTEGA Appellant, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York March 10, 2012, Argued March 10, 2012, Decided COUNSEL: Aaron DeLoria and Alex Ruzbacki, for Appellant. Ethan DeAbreau and Jeff Gao, for Respondent. JUDGES: Dewitt, Domagola, Parakkatu, Blaszczyk, Furia OPINION BY: Last OPINION We the Appellate court of the state of New York find in favor of the respondent, the People of the State of New York. The issue in this case was whether or not the judge abused his discretion in denying a third adjournment. The respondents adequately disproved the test in People v. Foy that states, “to put off trial it must appear that: (1) that the witness really is material and appears to the court to be so; (2) that the party who applies has been guilty of no neglect; (3) that the witness can be had at the time to which the trial is deferred. “ The state proved that the Foy test was not applicable in this case. First, they successfully proved that Raimundi was not a material witness due to the fact that he would not provide a proper alibi for Raphael Ortega. The state properly explained that it was simply not possible for the two minorities to be together the entire night. Another case law concerning a material witness is People v. Adair. They successfully compared the nonmaterial officer in question in Adair to Atrion Raimundi. We therefore find Raimundi was not material. With regards to the second prong, the respondents successfully proved that the appellants had shown neglect throughout the trial. They properly expressed the different possibilities the appellants could have taken to provide their “material witness.” They provided examples such as providing a car, or providing another subpoena for Atrion Raimundi. And lastly, the respondents disproved the third prong by mentioning the errors within the subpoena. They mentioned the importance of due diligence and gave proper examples of how to improve the actions of the appellants. The respondents also properly disclosed the second issue of whether or not the judge had shown bias by not granting a third adjournment. They adequately explained the issue of time. The appellants had over 23 hours, which was found by the respondents to be plenty of time to revise their argument. They also properly compared this situation to People v. Singleton, where they only had 17 hours to prepare a new argument. The respondents properly expressed the logical reasoning for of Judge Murtaugh’s denial of a third adjournment by proving how unprepared the appellants were by not providing a backup for their argument. We agree with the original ruling of the court and certify that Raphael’ Ortega’s conviction came at the conclusion of a properly conducted and fairly run trial. 50
Page 1:
PROGRAM SPONSORED BY: PROGRAM SPON
Page 4 and 5:
2012 New York State YMCA Youth & Go
Page 6 and 7:
New York State YMCA Foundation, Inc
Page 8 and 9:
DISTRICT 6 Clark Cayla Kenney Tess
Page 10 and 11:
New York State YMCA Youth and Gover
Page 12 and 13:
Clement A. Duran Delegate Scholarsh
Page 14 and 15:
Selected delegates to represent New
Page 16 and 17: Delegates elected by their teen pee
Page 18 and 19: #1 Best Firm - B Respondent Mary St
Page 20 and 21: Let’s take a look at a fairly con
Page 22 and 23: Executive Bill Decisions Governor P
Page 24 and 25: indefinitely press charges against
Page 26 and 27: 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15
Page 28 and 29: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 30 and 31: 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15
Page 32 and 33: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 34 and 35: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 36 and 37: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Page 38 and 39: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 40 and 41: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 42 and 43: Legislative Branch Activity Senate
Page 44 and 45: Topics of Passed Assembly Bills AL-
Page 46 and 47: Chief Justice Halle-Anne Orr 2012 J
Page 48 and 49: TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorit
Page 50 and 51: argument. Flynn Jebb also testified
Page 52 and 53: of materiality after listening to a
Page 54 and 55: CONCLUSION The Appellant’s reques
Page 56 and 57: Attorney General Judicial Review Co
Page 58 and 59: Chief Justice Decision Atrion Raimu
Page 60 and 61: Team 1 v 11 MARK RUTKOWSKI, Appella
Page 68 and 69: Team 17 v 24 RAPHAEL ORTEGA Appella
Page 76 and 77: Case C 2012 The People of the State
Page 78 and 79: Team 30 v 36 THE PEOPLE OF THE STAT
Page 86 and 87: Team 43 v 54 CHUCK MAZE ON BEHALF O
show all

2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?