The complainant allege that a pharmacist, acting both individually and as an agent of a pharmacy, submitted a number of claims for prescription refills for various recipients, which refills had not been authorized by the prescribing physicians.
Later, witness appeared before the grand jury, which returned the instant indictment, at which appearance she was represented by an attorney, and testified under transactional immunity.
After a year, the court set a proposed trial date with the understanding that if pretrial discovery had not been completed by that time the trial date would be postponed.
Subsequently, a female investigator appeared at the witness place of employment and informed her that another person, with whom the witness met before being questioned by him before the grand jury, wanted to meet with her. The witness alleges that the investigator provided her with the person’s telephone number and told her that it was important. The witness called as requested and agreed to meet with the person at his office.
Afterward, the investigator appeared at the witness’ place of employment and transported her to the person’s office, where she was directed to a room in which the person, another man and a woman were present. The witness alleges that she was asked to review her grand jury testimony for accuracy and they asked about an affidavit that the witness had signed many years ago, had the witness review the papers, and asked the witness about her opinion as to whose handwriting was on the document.
On the instant motion, the opponents argue that by communicating and causing his investigator to communicate with the witness without the prior consent of his attorney, the person violated a law. The opponents contend that the only appropriate remedies for the person’s allegedly unethical conduct is to disqualify him from any further participation in the case and to suppress the trial testimony of the witness to the extent that such testimony concerns with what she said during her meeting with the special assistant attorney general.
With respect to the practice of law, sources revealed that the term party means one of the opposing litigants in a judicial proceeding.
Consequently, the abovementioned law does not prohibit an attorney from communicating on the criminal proceeding, which he is engaged in the defense or prosecution of, with a witness who is not a suspect, offender or potential offender in the proceeding whom he knows to be represented by counsel.
Similarly unpersuasive is the offender’s contention that the witness was an adverse party within the rule’s domain of protection because the process of reviewing with the special assistant attorney general in the testimony which she had given before the grand jury, presented the very real possibility that she would withdraw portions of that testimony under pressure from the court and, thus, subject herself to a perjury charge. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to say that the possibility that a witness may withdraw portions of previously sworn testimony while reviewing it and it is also possible that a witness who does withdraw her prior sworn testimony may be subject to a perjury charge. However, it does not follow there from that every witness is entitled to have an attorney, even one already retained by the time the prior sworn testimony was given, present before she can be asked to review the prior testimony.
As a result, because the special assistant attorney general did not violate the law, the court decided to deny the offender’s motion to find that he did so, to disqualify him from participating in the prosecution of the case and to suppress portions of the witness’s trial testimony.
In some cases, some individuals get involved in a crime even if they are not liable for it. If the same happened to you, you can seek legal help from the Bronx County Criminal Lawyer. You can also have the Bronx County Grand Larceny Attorney to help you maintain your constitutional rights. Immediately call or visit Stephen Bilkis and Associates office for more details.