People v. Gramaglia, 71 N.Y.2d 768 (1988)
Evidence illegally seized is admissible in a subsequent perjury prosecution if the defendant knowingly made false statements before a grand jury after being granted immunity, because the deterrent effect of suppressing the evidence in such a case is negligible.
Summary
Gramaglia was found in a car with a large sum of money. The money and a checkbook were seized illegally. Subsequently, Gramaglia was granted immunity and testified before a grand jury about the checkbook entries, allegedly committing perjury. The Court of Appeals held that the illegally seized checkbook and money were admissible in the perjury trial. The Court reasoned that suppressing the evidence would have a negligible deterrent effect on unlawful police conduct since Gramaglia knew about the seized evidence when he testified, and excluding the evidence would essentially grant a “license to commit perjury”.
Facts
A New York State Trooper noticed Gramaglia in a parked car with Canadian license plates, acting suspiciously. The trooper approached the vehicle and saw packages in the trunk. When questioned, Gramaglia stated the packages contained money, but he did not know whose money it was. The trooper seized one of the packages, found it contained cash, and arrested Gramaglia. A search of the vehicle revealed luggage containing a Valium tablet and codeine pills, as well as a checkbook. The packages contained $815,000 in cash. The trial court determined that the checkbook and money were illegally seized from the defendant.
Procedural History
Gramaglia was initially charged with misdemeanor drug possession, but those charges were dismissed. He was then subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury regarding the $815,000 and granted immunity. He was subsequently indicted for perjury based on his allegedly false testimony regarding entries in the seized checkbook. The trial court granted Gramaglia’s motion to suppress the checkbook and money, finding they were illegally seized. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the evidence was admissible despite the unlawful arrest.
Issue(s)
Whether evidence illegally seized from a defendant is admissible in a subsequent perjury prosecution against that defendant, when the defendant testified before a grand jury with immunity and allegedly made false statements about that evidence.
Holding
Yes, because the deterrent effect of suppressing illegally seized evidence in a perjury prosecution is negligible where the defendant knew of the illegal seizure and then perjured himself before the grand jury after being granted immunity. Granting suppression would allow the defendant to commit perjury without recourse.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals based its decision on the primary function of the exclusionary rule: deterrence of future unlawful police activity. The court stated,