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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Team 58 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: Danamarie Gangon, for Appellant. Maxwell Beebe and Ceejay Lofland, for Respondent. JUDGES: Mallone, Al-Ajmi, Dhami, Vanini, King, Finan OPINION We the Appellant Court of the State of New York find in favor of the respondent, The People of the State of New York. The respondent properly illustrated that Judge Murtaugh’s actions did not deny Raphael Ortega his constitutional right to call a witness on his behalf nor his right to effectively confer with council. The respondent was able to prove that Judge Murtaugh’s action to deny a third adjournment was not a violation of these rights. The Sixth amendment grants every citizen the right to call a witness in his or her defense. In this case the respondent was able to prove that Judge Murtaugh did not abuse her discretion when she denied Raphael Ortega a third adjournment. In People v. Foy the court cites People v. Brabson when they say “…the defendant does not have the right to delay his trial unreasonably regardless of reality.” The respondent accentuated that since Raimundi failed to arrive after the first two adjournments the court could not further delay the trail because of his inability to come at the proper time. Additionally the respondents explained that a case cannot be delayed indefinitely when they explained why Ortega did not deserve a third adjournment as referenced in People v. Singleton. In People v. Singleton, three adjournments were issued prior to denying the final adjournment. The respondents correctly correlated Singleton to our case, where Judge Murtaugh issued two adjournments, proving there was no abuse of discretion. The third prong of the Foy test states, “to put off a trial it must appear that the witness can be had at the time to which the trial is deferred”, respondents proved that Raimundi would most likely not show up if a third adjournment were granted. As the respondents successfully argued, Raimundi’s failures to be present after the first and second adjournments were enough to suggest that he would not appear if a third adjournment had been granted. Both the respondents and appellants addressed the second prong of the Foy test which recognizes that to delay a trial “…the party who applies has been guilty of no neglect”. The appellants argued against this, claiming that the defendants used due diligence including contacting Raimundi’s family to try and ensure his arrival. However, the respondents provided a stronger argument explaining that Ortega’s counsel could have taken further measures such as providing Raimundi a bus schedule to ensure his arrival to the courthouse on the proper day. The first prong of the Foy test states “…to put off a trial it must appear that the witness is really material and appears to the court to be so.” Judge Murtaugh’s decision to deny the defendants a material witness warrant proves Raimundi was not a material witness. While the appellants argued that Atrion was a material witness being the only other minority at the wedding and a friend of defendant, the respondents successfully argued that Raimundi could not confirm the whereabouts of Ortega every minute of the night. The sixth amendment of the constitution also ensures that one is allowed to refer to their counsel throughout the duration of a trial. As the respondents stated, in the case of People v. Adair adjournments lie in sound discretion of the court. The respondents correctly connected this to our case to show that Judge Murtaugh did not abuse her discretion when she denied Raphael a thirty minute break to confer with his counsel. Additionally, referencing the case of People v. Spears, the respondents explained that the judge in the Spears case openly issued a prejudice statement where as in this case Judge Murtaugh simply muttered something under her breath. We believe the jury used their best discretion upon hearing Judge Murtaugh’s comment. We therefore uphold the ruling of the lower court on all issues 53
Team 16 v 23 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: Beth Crimi and Brianna Connolly, for Appellant. Mary Stephenson and Krista Barbeau, for Respondent. JUDGES: Englemann, Walker, Dole, Galusha, Muthig 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 was able to clearly establish that the amount of time given to the defendant by Judge Murtagh infringed upon neither the defendant’s right to call a witness on his behalf nor his right to affectively confer with his co-council. The respondent was also able to sufficiently attack the veracity of the materiality of Atrion Raimundi to justify the denial the third adjournment on the grounds that he was not sufficiently important to the case as applied to People v. Foy. Crucial to this case was the 3 prong Foy test, in which it is clearly outlined that the criteria for a new trial to be granted in regard to a lack witness testimony require: (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) that the witness can be had at the time to which the trial is deferred. As to the first prong of the test, the respondent was able to cast a reasonable doubt on the materiality of Atrion Raimundi as a witness with numerous statements by attendees of the wedding that contended that Atrion and Raphael had minimal interaction during the wedding, and Atrion was therefore not material enough to warrant a third adjournment even if he could have been marginally important to the trial in question. As to the second prong of the test, the respondent was able to prove that the defendant was guilty of neglect, by arguing that the defendant should have been able to get to the court room in the time allotted due to the flexibility of the New York City transit system. In regard to the third prong of the test, though the defendant’s contention that Atrion’s attendance on the wrong day demonstrated his capacity to be in the courtroom on time was well received. The respondent was successfully able to demonstrate that this contention alone was not enough to justify a new trial. The defendant also attempted to contend that the Judge Murtagh’s mutterings during the case were a showing of prejudice, similar to People v. Spears. However, the respondent was able to demonstrate that this matter, in which the Judge was only alleged to have whispered a predatory statement, is very different from Spears, in which the defendant was berated and abused by the judge. Finally the defendant argued that the denying of the adjournment by judge Murtagh infringed upon the right of the defendant to affectively confer with his co-council. However the court agrees that all defendants should have had plan “A, B, C, D, and E” in case of a problem and the right was not infringed upon. While the defendant’s contention that the discretion of Judge Murtagh was “not unlimited” as stated in People v. Singleton was well received, the arguments of the respondent clearly showed that the lower court judge did not abuse her discretion. Therefore we find that the decision of the lower court should be upheld and no new trial to be granted. Order affirmed, Justices Muthig, Engelmann, Galusha, and Dole concur. 54
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?