People v. Cruz, 34 N.Y.2d 364 (1974)

A defendant alleging illegal wiretapping must present reasonably precise facts linking the suspected surveillance to the trial proceedings to warrant a hearing; a vague, conclusory allegation is insufficient.

Summary

Eduardo Cruz was convicted of possession and transportation of incendiary bombs and possession of a weapon. On appeal, Cruz argued that the prosecution used information obtained from illegal wiretapping of him and his counsel, and that the trial court erred in not conducting a hearing on his allegations. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Cruz’s initial allegations of eavesdropping were too vague and unsupported to warrant a hearing. The court outlined guidelines for future cases involving similar allegations, emphasizing the defendant’s burden to provide specific facts reasonably suggesting surveillance before the burden shifts to the prosecution to affirm or deny the allegations in a detailed affidavit.

Facts

Eduardo Cruz and Wilfredo Melendez were arrested after a traffic stop. During the stop, Officer Amira saw a brown bag in the back seat. Cruz made a sudden movement toward the bag, prompting Amira to seize it. Cruz warned, “Be careful man, that’s a bomb.” The bag contained components of an incendiary bomb. A search of the car at the police station revealed a billy club. Before trial, Cruz sought disclosure of any eavesdropping evidence, which was denied. During the trial, Cruz’s counsel alleged that the prosecution’s cross-examination of a defense witness suggested illegal wiretapping due to questions about the “Anarchist’s Cookbook.” Later, counsel alleged a reference in the prosecutor’s summation indicated wiretapping.

Procedural History

Cruz was convicted in the trial court. He appealed, arguing that the People were using information derived from illegal wiretapping and that the trial court erred in not holding a hearing on his allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and Cruz appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s allegations of illegal wiretapping were sufficient to require a hearing on the matter.

Holding

1. No, because the defendant’s initial allegation of eavesdropping was vague, conclusory, and unsupported, barely sufficing to shift the burden of responding to the People.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that Cruz’s initial allegation of eavesdropping was too vague and unsupported to warrant a hearing. The court emphasized that the defendant bears the initial burden of presenting reasonably precise facts that suggest the defendant or his counsel was subjected to undisclosed electronic surveillance. Such allegations should specify dates, persons, telephone numbers, and facts that link the suspected surveillance to the trial proceedings. A sufficient showing shifts the burden to the People to affirm or deny the allegations in a reasonably specific, comprehensive, and forthright affidavit. The affidavit should detail the law enforcement agencies contacted, the inquiries made, and the replies received regarding electronic surveillance. The court noted, “To use, without notice to the defendant, evidence derived from electronic surveillance is impermissible, even if the surveillance itself is legal.” However, in this case, the prosecutor’s denial, coupled with the court’s examination of the prosecutor’s file, sufficiently addressed the vague allegations. The court noted that while the later allegations regarding cross-examination and summation were more specific, they remained speculative. The court ultimately affirmed the conviction.