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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Team 59 v 28 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: Ashley Rogers, Claire Delayne, and Christina Fallone , for Appellant. Maxwell Beebe and Ceejay Lofland, 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 respondent sufficiently demonstrated that Judge Murtagh did not in any way abuse her discretion. The respondents disproved all of the factors in the test outlined in People v. Foy to determine abuse of discretion when a court denies an adjournment. The respondent proved that Judge Murtagh did not abuse her discretion in denying further consent with counsel. The issue in this case is whether or not the lower court abused their discretion in denying the third adjournment through application of the Foy test. The Respondents adequately disproved the three criteria of the Foy test which are as follows: (1) that the witness is really material and appears to the court to be so, (2) that the party who applies has been guilty of no neglect (3) and that the witness can be had at the time to which the trial is deferred. The Respondents proved the first criteria of the Foy test was unmet by accurately arguing that Atrion is not a material witness because there was sworn testimony presented in the trial by both Flynn Jebb and DJ Slick Sam which stated that Raphael was on the dance floor all night and not with Atrion. This case was related to that of People v. Adair in that the judge did not abuse her discretion due to denying an adjournment. It was also argued that Atrion would not be considered material to the case because he was not called as a witness until two days before the trial. The second criterion of the Foy test was additionally not met, as shown by the respondents. The defense was clearly guilty of neglect and they did not take necessary steps to make sure Atrion would make it to court at the time of the trial. The defense should have issued an additional subpoena and could have made more effort to inform the witness of bus scheduling or they could have paid for a car to pick him up. The third criterion was unmet as the respondents addressed the fact that the witness was given two opportunities to appear in court and failed both times and therefore could not be had at the time to which the trial was deferred. The second issue in this case is whether or not Judge Murtagh abused her discretion in not allowing the defendant to properly confer with their counsel. The respondent stated that “the defense asked for 15 minutes and they were granted 15 minutes.” This was put in contrast to People v. Spears where the judge only gave the defendant a mere 5 seconds to consult his lawyer. Given this wide disparity in time pointed out by the respondents we have determined that it would be inappropriate to grant the defendant a new trial as the court did in the case of People v. Spears. Therefore, we agree with the lower court and uphold their decision to deny the defendant, Raphael Ortega, a new trial. 57
Team 57 v 25 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: Katie Seeger and Maggie Miller, for Appellant. Jasmine Somers, for Respondent. JUDGES: Mallone, Al-Ajmi, Dhami, Vanini, King, Finan OPINION We the Appellate Court of the State of New York find in favor of the appellant, Raphael Ortega. The appellant properly proved that Judge Murtaugh’s decision in not granting the third adjournment was considered as violating Ortega’s right to call a witness to court. However, the appellant failed to prove that the lower court violated the defendant’s right to confer with his counsel. An important aspect of this case was proving whether the defendants’ right to call a witness to stand was violated or not. The appellant proved that the witness, Atrion Raimundi, was a material witness because he was an alibi witness and the whole defense essentially centered his presence in court. The appellant proceeded to properly apply the first prong of the Foy test, found in People v. Foy, to support her claim that Raimundi was essential to the case and that Judge Murtagh abused her discretion when denying the third adjournment. The appellant continued to effectively apply the second and third prong of the Foy test in the argument. They went about proving the second prong of the Foy test, that the party who applies has been guilty of no neglect, successfully by stating that it is the court is at fault by not issuing the material witness warrant that was requested in the original trial. By stating that the court failed to show importance towards the material witness in this case proves that a new trial is in order due to the violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to call a witness to the stand. Finally, the appellant established that the third prong of the Foy test, that the witness can be had at the time to which the trial is deferred, was met in this case. The appellant went on to prove this by stating that the witness was on his way to court when he was last contacted and that the thirty minutes could have, in fact, been enough time for the witness to get to there. This argument clarifies the question of whether the defendants’ right to call a witness to the stand had been violated or not and affirms that the lower court did, indeed, abuse its’ discretion by not granting the third adjournment. Another crucial aspect of this case was the proving that Judge Murtagh abused her discretion when not allowing the defendant enough time to confer with their counsel. While the appellant was successful in properly proving the first aspect of the case they failed to address the second one. The appellant was incorrect in comparing the case to that of People v. Spears, where a judge vocally expressed impatience and only allowed the counsel five seconds to confer with his defendant. This case is incomparable to that of People v. Spears because in our case the defendant was given a total of 23 hours to effectively confer with their counsel and failed to properly use that time. The court cannot be held accountable for the irresponsibility of the defense. Therefore, the appellant failed to show the court that Judge Murtagh abused her discretion by not allowing more time for the defendant to confer with his counsel. We disagree with the original ruling of the court and certify that Raphael Ortega be granted a new trial. 58
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 66 and 67: Case B 2012 Raphael Ortega, 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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?