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

Team 18 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: Auden Lewis and Randi
Ciminello, for Appellant.
Ethan DeAbreau and Jeff
Gao, for Respondent.
JUDGES: . Mallone, Al-Ajmi, Dhami,
Vanini, King, Finan
OPINION BY: Last
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 successfully argued that Judge
Murtaugh did not infringe on Ortega’s
constitutional rights to confer with his
counsel and call witnesses for his defense.
A vital factor in this case is determining
whether or not Ortega’s constitutional right
to call a witness was violated. The case of
People of the State of New York v. Ronald
Foy says that, “to put off a it must appear (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.” The
Respondent clearly stated that the Foy Test
failed on all counts, and therefore, the trial
cannot be put off simply due to the absence
of Atrion Raimundi. The respondents said
that the witness is not material because the
testimony of Raimundi could not affect the
outcome of the case because there were no
other witnesses that saw them together at the
party. They said that Ortega’s trial attorneys
were guilty of neglect because of their lack
of due diligence. This was proven through
the fact that they could not do something
like provide other transportation methods to
Raimundi. The third prong of the trial also
failed because Raimundi did not come for
the first two times he was summoned to
trial, so we do not know if he would be there
another time. The respondent also correctly
compared our case to People v. Adair by
emphasizing that, under the “totality of the
circumstances,” Ortega had adequate time to
prepare for the trial. They said that, if the
attorney in the case of Adair was able to
prepare for the case in 17 days, Ortega could
clearly be ready to present within a time
frame of two months. We agree with the
respondent’s assessment.
Another essential issue in this case
surrounds the situation of whether or not
Ortega was allowed the right to confer with
his co-council. The respondents used the
case of People v. Spears; they stated that
unlike Spears, the judge gave Ortega more
than just a “few minutes” to consult with his
lawyer. The respondents stated that the
fifteen minutes break Judge Murtaugh
granted Ortega could have been used as
valuable time to confer with his co-council.
In fact, Ortega could have conferred with his
co-council the
We find no abuse of discretion. Therefore,
we rule in favor of the respondents because
they effectively debated that Judge
Murtaugh did not violate Ortega’s
constitutional rights to confer with his
counsel and call witnesses for his defense.
55