People v. Lee, 58 N.Y.2d 775 (1982)

A trial judge may warn a potential defense witness about the consequences of testifying without the warning being deemed impermissibly intimidating if it does not interfere with the witness’s choice to testify.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the trial judge’s warning to a potential defense witness did not effectively drive the witness off the stand. The judge advised the witness, who allegedly would confess to the crime the defendant was accused of, of his right to remain silent and that his testimony would be referred to the District Attorney. The Court of Appeals found that this warning, while potentially strongly worded, did not constitute a threat but rather an advisement of potential consequences, which the witness was entitled to know before deciding to testify. The court distinguished this case from those where the threat was prosecution for perjury and emphasized the obligation to warn witnesses appropriately.

Facts

The defendant was on trial for a narcotics-related crime.

A potential defense witness was identified who allegedly would testify that he, not the defendant, committed the crime.

The trial judge, with the concurrence of the defendant’s attorney, addressed the witness outside the presence of the jury.

The judge informed the witness of his right to remain silent and his privilege against self-incrimination.

The judge stated that if the witness testified, his testimony “should be referred very strongly to the District Attorney for appropriate action.”

Following the judge’s warning, the witness did not testify.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted at trial.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial judge’s warning to the potential defense witness effectively drove the witness off the stand, thus depriving the defendant of a fair trial.

Holding

No, because the warning constituted no more than a statement that if the witness testified to his own commission of a crime, the District Attorney would be so advised; this did not interfere with the witness’s choice whether to testify.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Webb v. Texas and similar cases where the threat was of prosecution for perjury. Here, the court reasoned, there was no direct threat of prosecution. Instead, the trial judge, with the consent of the defendant’s attorney, merely informed the witness of his rights and the potential consequences of his testimony, namely, that his testimony would be brought to the District Attorney’s attention. The court acknowledged that the phrase