82 N.Y.2d 521 (1993)
r
r
Under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings (CPL 640.10), when New York is the sending state, the court should determine if a witness or evidence is “material and necessary” to an out-of-state criminal proceeding, but should not consider potential evidentiary privileges applicable in the demanding state.
r
r
Summary
r
The State of New Jersey sought a subpoena in New York to compel Capital Cities/ABC to produce video outtakes and reporter’s notes for a New Jersey grand jury investigation. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a New York court, acting as the sending state under CPL 640.10, should consider the privileged status of the evidence under New Jersey’s Shield Law when determining if the evidence is “material and necessary.” The Court held that the privileged status of the evidence is not a proper factor for consideration under CPL 640.10(2). This decision emphasizes comity and efficiency in interstate legal proceedings, reserving privilege determinations for the demanding state.
r
r
Facts
r
Capital Cities/ABC broadcast a story about a point-shaving scheme. The story included an interview with an anonymous player. The player later agreed to cooperate with a New Jersey grand jury but couldn’t recall all the details from the unaired portion of the interview.
r
The New Jersey grand jury sought the unaired video and reporter’s notes using the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings. A New Jersey court certified the evidence as material and necessary. The certificate was then presented to a New York court to obtain a subpoena compelling ABC to produce the evidence.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The New York Supreme Court granted the subpoena, declining to consider ABC’s argument that the evidence was privileged under New Jersey’s Shield Law. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the evidence could not be considered “material” or “necessary” if it was inadmissible due to privilege. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether, under CPL 640.10(2), a New York court, acting as the sending state, should consider the potential privileged status of evidence in the demanding state when determining if the evidence is “material and necessary” to the demanding state’s criminal proceeding.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the privileged status of the evidence is not a proper factor for consideration under CPL 640.10(2).
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals reasoned that “materiality” relates to the logical relevance of the evidence to the subject matter of the investigation, while “necessity” refers to whether the evidence is useful, legally significant, and non-cumulative. The Court stated that neither term encompasses the concept of “privilege,” which concerns the admissibility of evidence. The court distinguished People v. McCartney, noting that McCartney concerned New York as the demanding state, where a broader inquiry is appropriate.
r
The Court emphasized that CPL 640.10 aims to provide a simple and consistent method for compelling out-of-state witnesses. Allowing the sending state to resolve privilege questions would be inefficient and could lead to inconsistent results, as these issues would likely be relitigated in the demanding state.
r
Furthermore, the court held that privilege issues are best resolved in the state where the evidence is to be used, as those courts are more familiar with local laws and policies regarding privileges. New Jersey’s journalist’s privilege is subject to exceptions, such as countervailing constitutional rights and waiver. A New York court would be ill-equipped to interpret the nuances of New Jersey law.
r
The Court noted that concerns about unjustified incursions on the liberty of New York residents are better addressed through the “undue hardship” provision of CPL 640.10(2). The Court emphasized that the “hardship” balance might be different in a case involving a transcontinental, “border-to-border” or “multiple-forum” proceeding. As such, the case was reversed and remitted to the Supreme Court.