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

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