The People, Respondent,v.Roosevelt Jennings, Appellant.BriefN.Y.December 5, 2013Blaine (Fin) V. Fogg President Steven Banks Attorney–in–Chief Seymour W. James, Jr. Attorney–in–Charge Criminal Practice Criminal Appeals Bureau 199 Water Street New York, NY 10038 Tel: 212-577-3403 www.legal-aid.org April 25, 2013 VIA EXPRESS MAIL Hon. Jonathan Lippman Chief Judge Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Hall 20 Eagle Street Albany, New York 12207 Re: People v. Roosevelt Jennings Rule 500.11(e) Reply Your Honor: This letter is submitted pursuant to Court Rule Section 500.11(e) for the limited purpose of addressing the People’s argument that appellant waived his right to be prosecuted by information. Their argument should be rejected. The relevant facts are set forth in appellant’s original submission dated March 25, 2013. In their Rule 500.11(c) submission, the People argue that appellant waived his right to be prosecuted by information because his lawyer, while representing another defendant in another case, offered to waive the reading of the rights and charges “but not the rights thereunder” for “all other matters before [t]he Court” (People’s Submission at 12, fn 4). In making the argument, the People rely on People v. Connor, 63 N.Y. 2d 11 (1984) where the Court found that the verbal waiver by counsel in the presence of the defendant of the reading of the rights and charges combined with defendant’s subsequent conduct resulted in a waiver of the right to be prosecuted by information. In this case, counsel’s waiver of the reading of the rights and charges during his representation of another client in another case cannot be interpreted as a waiver by appellant of his right to be prosecuted by information for several reasons. First, the Court in Connor expressly warned that “the waiver of the mandated reading of the right did not, of course, by itself constitute a waiver of the procedural right to be tried by information,” Id. at 14, fn. 1. Second, this Court in People v. Casey, 95 N.Y. 2d 354, 359 (2000), expressly held that the waiver of a reading of the information is not a waiver of a defendant’s procedural right to be 2 prosecuted by information. Third, there is no evidence in this case that appellant was present when his lawyer offered to waive the reading of the rights and charges during the representation of another client in another case. Therefore, the waiver cannot be deemed to apply to appellant. Finally, the waivers in Casey and Connor did not, as here, contain an express retention of “the rights thereunder.” To the extent counsel did anything in the case of her other client, pertinent to this case, she explicitly waived only the reading of the rights and charges and NOT the rights thereunder, including the right to be prosecuted by information. For the above-stated reasons, the People argument must be rejected. Should the Court have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at the above-address and number. Respectfully submitted, NATALIE REA Associate Appellate Counsel 212-577-3403 cc: Hon. Charles J. Hynes Kings County District Attorney Renaissance Plaza 350 Jay Street Brooklyn, New York 11201-2908 Attn: A.D.A Marie John-Drigo