People v. McGrath, 46 N.Y.2d 941 (1979)
A grand jury witness who believes questions are based on illegal wiretapping must request to be brought before the court to raise the objection, after which the court can inquire into the basis of the questioning.
Summary
This case addresses the procedure a grand jury witness must follow when they suspect questions are derived from illegal wiretapping. The Court of Appeals held that while a witness cannot be compelled to answer questions based on illegal wiretaps, the prosecutor isn’t automatically obligated to confirm or deny the wiretapping. The witness must request to be brought before the court to raise the objection. The court can then investigate, including questioning the prosecutor, to determine if the objection is valid. Because the defendant didn’t seek court advice, the Appellate Division’s order was reversed.
Facts
A grand jury witness, McGrath, was questioned and believed the questions were based on illegally obtained wiretap evidence. McGrath did not request to be brought before the court for guidance or to formally raise his objection.
Procedural History
The specific procedural history before the Court of Appeals is not detailed in the provided text, but the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division, First Department, and remitted the case back to that court for consideration of the facts.
Issue(s)
Whether a grand jury witness, objecting to questions on the grounds of illegal wiretapping, must request to be brought before the court to trigger a judicial inquiry into the validity of the objection?
Holding
Yes, because when a witness believes the Grand Jury questioning is based on illegal wiretapping, they must request the court’s intervention; the prosecutor is not obligated to automatically address the objection during the Grand Jury proceeding itself.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that while a witness cannot be compelled to answer questions based on illegally obtained wiretap evidence (citing U.S. Code, tit. 18, § 2515), the burden is on the witness to raise the objection before the court. The court emphasized that the prosecutor doesn’t have an automatic obligation to affirm or deny the existence of illegal wiretapping during the Grand Jury proceeding unless the witness asks to be brought before the court. Once the witness makes that request, “the Presiding Justice may make appropriate inquiry whether the witness’ objection is sound.” The court explicitly grants discretion to interrogate the prosecutor, even in camera, regarding the basis for questioning the witness. The court distinguished state procedure from federal procedure under U.S. Code, tit. 18, § 3504, noting the omission of a similar requirement for prosecutors to affirm or deny in state grand jury proceedings was intentional. Because the defendant failed to seek the court’s advice or instruction, the Court of Appeals found the Appellate Division’s order was in error.