1

CRIMINAL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART JURY 1

2
3

-----------------------------------x
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
- against -

4
5

DOCKET NOS. 2008NY053104 2008NY053105 Defendants.

6
7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CASSANDRA MALANDRI AND FALYNN RODRIGUEZ

------------------------------------x

100 Centre Street New York, NY 10013 January 19, 2010

B E FOR E:
HONORABLE SHAWNDYA SIMPSON Justice of the Criminal Court A P PEA RAN C E S:

CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., ESQ.

District Attorney, New York County
BY: DARRYL REED AND TAMI ALPERT, ESQS.
Assistant District Attorney

ADAM H. MOSER, ESQ. Attorney for Deft. Rodriguez 11 Clinton Avenue Rockville Centre, NY 11570 IKIESHA AL-SHABAZZ, ESQ. Attorney for Deft. Malandri 26 Broadway, 21st FIr. New York, NY 10004

SALVATORE E.STRAZZULLO, ESQ. Attorney for Deft. Malandri 100 Park Ave.- Suite 1600 New York, NY 10017

IDA TEJADA OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

- Proceedings

(Whereupon, the following takes place on the record in open court in the presence of the Court, the district attorneys, the defense counsel and the defendants.) COURT OFFICER: Docket 2008NY053104,

2
3

4
5

6 7
8

Cassandra Malandri, and Docket 2008NY053105, Falynn Rodriguez. Counsel, your appearances? MR. MOSER: For the defendant, Falynn

9
10

Rodriguez, Adam Moser, 11 Clinton Avenue, Rockville Centre, New York 11570. MR. STRAZZULLO; Salvatore Strazzullo and

11 12
13 14 15

Ikiesha AI-Shabazz for Cassandra Malandri. Good afternoon, Honor. MR. REED: Good afternoon. Good People. Good afternoon, Your

16
17 18 19 20 21 . Honor. afternoon.

Darryl Reed for the People, Your Honor.

MS. ALPERT: Good afternoon. THE COURT: MS. ALPERT: THE COURT:

Tami Alpert for the People, Your

Say your name, again?

Tami Alpert, A-L-P-E-R-T.
All right.

22
23 24 25

Just before we begin, People, are there any

recommendations at this time?

- Proceedings

MR. REED:

Your Honor, there is an offer of

2
3

240.20, and the longstanding offer of the allocution as to both defendants. THE COURT: MR. REED: THE COURT: MR. MOSER: So it's 240.20; CD allocution? Yes, Your Honor. Counsel, are you interested? As I've always said, if they took But with the

4
5

6 7
8

away the allocution we'd be interested. allocution, no interest. MR. STRAZZULLO: THE COURT: MR. REED: THE COURT: Information? MR. REED: a witness list and - THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. Okay. Your Honor

9 10
11

No, no interest, Your Honor.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

Is there a Prosecutor's

I actually have

Do you have enough copies for

myself, the court reporter - MR. REED: Yes, Your Honor. Counsel, have you received a

COURT OFFICER:

copy of the Prosecutor's Information? MR. MOSER: Yes. Yes. You waive the formal readings

MR. STRAZZULLO: COURT OFFICER:

24 25

of the rights and charges, but not the rights there

4
- Proceedings

under? MR. STRAZZULLO: MR. MOSER: So waived.

2
3

Yes, yes. Counsel, how does your client

4
5
plea?

COURT OFFICER:

MR. MOSER:

Not guilty. Not guilty. Thank you. As to all the Rosario

7
8 9
10
11

MR. STRAZZULLO: COURT OFFICER: THE COURT:

All right.

material, has that been handed over to Counsel? MR. REED: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. Can you just state what you've

12 13

given them on the record, and you can acknowledge receipt, Counsel? MR. REED: I actually did that on the record I don't have the list in

14 15
16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23

a couple of appearances ago. front of me.

I

can - Did you do that at the hearing?

I

THE COURT: MR. REED: Honor. THE COURT: MR. REED: THE COURT: MR. REED:

did it at the hearing, Your

Okay. I can do again, if you want? All right. Your Honor, the People handed over

24
25

the Tactical Plan from June 19th, of 2008, a Search

- Proceedings

Warrant Plan from the search warrant executed on July 17th, of 2008, which consist of three pages, the DD5from Undercover 3026, from June 20th, of 2008; a memo book from Undercover 3026, from the night of June 19th, going into June 20th. Also, grand jury minutes from Garrett Baldwin appearing before the grand jury in July of 2008. there's another list in addition to this. I see

2
3

4
5

6
7
8

There's a

9
10
11

memo book from Undercover 148 that was also -- I believe that was handed over as well. But, however,

all of that was put on the record at the hearing. THE COURT: All right.

12
13

Counsel, do you acknowledge receipt of

Rosario? MR. STRAZZULLO: Honor. MR. MOSER: you. MS. AL-SHABAZZ: THE COURT: MR. REED: Acknowledge receipt. Acknowledge receipt, yes. Thank I acknowledge receipt, Your

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Any other preliminary matters? Actually, I did want to go, if

22
23 24 2'5

it's okay with Your Honor, to go grab our first witness and put him outside before Ms. Alpert opens. THE COURT: MR. REED: Sure. Is that okay? It will take me

6
Proceedings

three minutes. (Whereupon the district attorney went to get first witness.) (Back on the record.) THE COURT: MS. ALPERT: People, are you ready to proceed? Yes, Your Honor. This case is about

2 3
4

5 6 7
8

May it please the Court:

two women who jointly offered to have sex in exchange for money with an undercover police officer. here today, because shortly after midnight, on June 20th, 2008, at the Hot Lap Dance Club, located at 344 West 38th Street, here in the County of New York, the defendants, Ms. Falynn Rodriguez and Ms. Cassandra Malandri, jointly offered an undercover sexual Both of the We are

9
10 11 12

13
14 15

intercourse in exchange for $5,000.

16
17 18

defendants are charged by the People with the crime of prostitution. The evidence will show that on June 20th, 2008, two undercover police officers went to the Hot Lap Dance Club as part of an investigation. The evidence will show that each paid $50 at the door and entered the club. Once inside, one

19
20 21 22

23

undercover received a private lap dance from the two defendants who worked as dancers at the club. The evidence will show that following the lap

24
25

- Proceedings

1
2

dance,

Defendant Malandri,

known at the Hot Lap Dance

Club as Alexia Moore, approached the undercover and offered to go into a private room where Ms. Malandri, Ms. Rodriguez, and the undercover would all get naked and touch each other in exchange for $300. The evidence will show that the undercover declined this offer, but purchased another private lap dance from the two defendants, after which the undercover and the two defendants discussed having sexual intercourse in exchange for money. The evidence will show that the defendants offered to have group sexual intercourse with the undercover in exchange for $5,000, and that Ms. Malandri told the undercover that she and Ms. Rodriguez were a package deal. In that for $5,000

4
5

6
7

8
9

10
11

12 13 14

15 16 17 18
19
20

the undercover would have group sexual intercourse with both women at the same time. The evidence will also show that Defendant Rodriguez confirmed this group sex offer and told the undercover that she would "toss Alexia'S salad," which is a euphemism for a certain type of oral sex. The evidence will further show that the two defendants and the undercover verbally agreed to meet up the following day, at the Hilton Hotel, located at 54th Street and 6th Avenue, for the purpose of engaging

21

22 23
24

25

- Proceedings

1
2

in paid sexual intercourse. Finally, the evidence will show that Ms. Malandri has a pornographic website, and that Ms. Malandri told the undercover to confirm the sex for hire rendezvous by contacting her through an e-mail address, at that website, and she explained that the e-mail would go directly to her telephone. Based on this evidence, the defendants have been charged with the following crime: Prostitution in violation of Penal Law 230.00. In that the defendants, here in the County of

4 5
6
7

8
9

10 11 12 13 14
IS

New York, on June 20th, 2008, offered to engage in sexual conduct in exchange for cash with an Undercover New York City Police Officer. In this trial we'll hear from Undercover Officer No. 0148 who served as an undercover in this operation. Club. He will tell us about the Hot Lap Dance

16 17
18

He will walk us through a description of the Hot

19
20 21 22 23 24

Lap Dance Club, and he'll tell us about the lounge areas where he purchased a lap dance from both defendants. He'll also tell us about the private bedrooms where the defendants invited him so that Ms. Malandri, Ms. Rodriguez, and the undercover could all get naked and touch each other in exchange for $300.

25

9
- Proceedings

1
2

Finally, he will tell us about a conversation that he had with the two defendants where they offered to have sexual intercourse with him in exchange for $5,000. We will also hear from Det. Luis Rios who served as the other undercover in this investigation. He will tell us about how he saw the two defendants engaged in a conversation with the undercover, and he'll tell us that he saw the two defendants, as well as the undercover, go into a lap dance room. He will

4
5
6

7
8

9
10 11 12
13
14

also tell us about the conversation that he had with the undercover following these lap dances. We will also hear from Investigative Analyst, Garrett Baldwin. He will tell us about how Ms.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Malandri has a pornographic website and how this website offers a list of services that Ms. Malandri offers, and he will also tell us about how this website has a link that offers visitors the ability to contact her via an e-mail address. But to start things off, we will hear from Det. Vincent Kong. He will tell us about how he and

his team executed a search warrant at the Hot Lap Dance Club, on the evening of July 17th, through the early morning hours of July 18th, 2008. He will also tell us about how a police video

23 24
25

10 - Proceedings

was taken during the search, in his presence, on the evening of July 17th, through the morning of July 18th, 2008. Finally, in this trial, we will have an opportunity to review physical evidence. We will have

2
3

4
5

6
7

an opportunity to see the videos that were recorded of the Hot Lap Dance Club. We'll also have photographs

8
9

that were taken from these videos; they are called photo stills, and these will be presented to the Court as well. Once the Court has the opportunity to see these videos and look at these photos, and see the places where the lap dances were performed by the undercoversi these are areas that consist of beds and couches, and will so be able to see the places where

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

the conversations took place and where the defendants agree to have sexual intercourse with the undercover for $5,000, and once we've been able to watch all of the footage of the private bedroom, at the club, where the defendants offered to take the undercover to go get naked and touch each other; these rooms consist of beds, dressers, a little chair, and some thick curtains to serve as walls, and once we see the video that shows us the pantries filled with tissue boxes and extra sheets, and the roster of people working at the club

22 23

24
25

11 - Proceedings

1 2

that night, and once you've seen all this evidence for yourself and heard from all the witnesses, I'm sure

3
4

that you'll reach the verdict that the evidence supports and that the law defends, and that you will find the two defendants, Ms. Falynn Rodriguez and Ms. Cassandra Malandri, guilty of the crime of prostitution. Thank you for your time. MR. MOSER: sorry. THE COURT: MR. MOSER: Yes. Well, as unusual as things have Judge, as -- may I proceed? 11m

5
6
7

10 11 12 13 14

been in this trial, the first thing that I'm going to do, prior to opening, is to make an application for this Prosecutor's Information, that the People just led, to be dismissed for the following reasons: The People have led a Prosecutor's "That the defendant is

15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Information stating as follows:

in violation of 230.00 of the Penal Law, in the County of New York, on or about June 20th, 2008, engaged, agreed, and offered to engage in sexual conduct with another person for a fee." That's not the statute.

The statute, and the criminal and jury instructions are much different. They state as follows: "Under our law, a

24
25

12 - Proceedings

person 1S guilty of prostitution when such person engages or offers," I'm sorry. "Engages or agrees

2
3

or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee." The opening statement by the prosecutor specifically stated that, "The defendants offered to engage in sexual intercourse for $5,000." Their own

4
5

6
7

8
9

information which they filed, and they're ready for trial, and they're ready to open, states something completely different, states that they did all three. So they now have to prove all three elements of that crime which they've asked to do, which isn't even a violation of Section 230.00 of the Penal Law. You

10 11 12 13

14
15

can't possibly have a trial based on the fact that the defendants agreed to engage, agreed, and offered to engage in sexual conduct with another person for a fee in violation of Section 230.00 of the Penal Law because that's not how Section 230.00 is written. And I think cocounsel, Mr. Strazzullo, joins MR. STRAZZULLO: MR. MOSER: We join, Your Honor.

16 17 18 19 20 21
22

In the application as well. We join in the application. Well, we want to -- I want I want to expound on the

23
24

MR. STRAZZULLO: MS. AL-SHABAZZ: to join in the application.

25

13 - Proceedings

application a little bit further. Under the law, in People vs. Weinberg, 34 NY2d 429; under People vs. Henderson, 92 NY2d 677, which is a 1999 case, all dealing with the accusatory instruments that are defective in nature, this one in particular, and I don't even think the People's theory of the case is that the defendants actually engaged in any sexual conduct. Yet, that is what is in the So it's not even as if the

2 3
4 5
6

7
8 9

Prosecutor's Information.

10
11

People can then say, "Well, we'll change our theory of the case," to fit their error in the information, and I don't think that this is something that can be overlooked. It's paramount.

12
13

14 15
16
17

And I think that on these facts, with this information, given the fact that it's drawn up in the conjunctive, the statute is written in the disjunctive, and as a writing professor, I can't tell you how important "ands" and "ors" are. So in joining with cocounsel's application, we move to dismiss. MR. REED: Your Honor, it's the People's

18

19
20

21 22 23 24 25

position, we're not trying to change our theory of the case that the defendants actually engaged in sexual conduct with the undercover. Our theory of the case

remains the same, as it's been since the beginning,

14
- Proceedings

1
2
3

that there was an offer by both these defendants to engage in sexual conduct with the undercover for $5,000, and also to engage in sexual contact for $300. And it's the People's position that this Prosecutor's Information is read by the Courts in the conjunctive, and that is to say -- that is to mean that this "and" is to be read by the Courts as an "or". I don't have case law in front of me, Your Honor, but it's my position that's how we -- the Courts have read this statute. MR. MOSER: Judge, I think we're both going

4
5
6

7
8
9

10 11 12 13
14 15

to -- Judge, if you don't -- as cocounsel said, you can't possibly read it that way. done. It can't possibly be

They filed the application, they're ready for The

trial; they opened on this accusatory instrument.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

Court has no option at this point other than to dismiss it. That's not possibly -- it's an accusatory

instrument that is wholeheartedly defective at this point, and this must be dismissed. MR. REED: Your Honor, it's not it is the There are

People's position that it is not defective.

many statutes throughout the Penal Law that are read just as this one is written with - THE COURT: But I don't think that it's That's what -

24 25

written that way in the Penal Law.

15
- Proceedings

that's their argument. MR.. MOSER: THE COURT: MR. MOSER: THE COURT: Judge, it's not. I'm I'm sorry, Go ahead. I mean I'll be quiet. It's

3
4

5
6 7

MS. AL-SHABAZZ: MR. REED:

And, Your Honor, I submit to you

8
9

that the crime of prostitution is not read as the defendants have to commit all three of these acts. think it's clear - MS. AL-SHABAZZ: MR. REED: We agree.
I

10 11
12
13

I think it's clear that the

defendants -- that is read with the "or" as is the Prosecutor "s Information, that that "and" is read as an lIor". I don't have case law in front of me, but I'm

14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23

sure if Your Honor would give me a moment to go look up some case law THE COURT: I know that the People have a

habit when putting together or writing their complaint, to write their complaint such as, but I believe when it's the Prosecutor's Information that it should be more clear or more clarity. MS. AL-SHABAZZ: Court. I would agree with the

24 25

I believe that there is a significant

distinction between a complaint and an information, and

16
- Proceedings

1
2

I think the law is clear with respect to THE COURT: arguing. Go ahead. MS. AL-SHABAZZ: I think the law is clear. I'm not sure what the I But what I will do is -- keep

4
5

don't think the Court -- well,

6 7
8

People's argument is, because it sounds like the People are saying what we're saying here. It is you wrote

it in the conjunctive, but the statute MR. REED: But it's read in the disjunctive.

9
10

There are indictments that are read like that as well. MS. AL-SHABAZZ: on.
.1 don't think that there is any case law that

11
12

Okay.

Let me just continue

13

14
15

the People can drum up that will support the notion that the Court can impute an article or a word that's not in the statute or transposed. MR. REED: We should at least be given the

16
17 18 19
20

opportunity, Your Honor THE COURT: MR. REED: THE COURT: Okay. Well- ling another -

Or, if not, to re

21
22

This is what we're going to do. I would object to them

MS. AL-SHABAZZ: refiling. THE COURT:

23

24
25

What we're - At this point double

MS. AL-SHABAZZ:

17
- Proceedings

jeopardy is attached. MR. REED: Double jeopardy doesn't apply. I apologize.

2
3

MS. AL-SHABAZZ: THE COURT:

4
5

At this point, I'm going to give

the People a moment, or more than a moment, to .speak to their supervisor. I know counsel has submitted or You know I don't I'll give People

6
7

stated some case law on the record. mind being challenged or entertained.

8
9

the opportunity to find some case law that will support their argument, okay? MR. REED: MR. MOSER: Okay. Thank you, Judge.

10 11 12

Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Judge.

13
14
15 16

MR. STRAZZULLO: THE COURT:

And when I say a moment, I mean Go ahead and take your time.

more than three minutes.

(Whereupon the Court gave the People an opportunity to research case law.) (Back on the record.) THE CLERK: THE COURT: Recalling the trial matter. All right.

17
18 19
20

21
22

Anything further? MR. REED: Yes, yes, Your Honor. Thank you

23

giving us a moment to go do some research. Your Honor, actually. People are handing up two cases

24
25

One is a Court of Appeals case, and one is a

18
- Proceedings

1
2

Third Dept. case.

I'm going to be referring to the

Court of Appeals case, and I've highlighted for you the section that I'm going to refer to, Your Honor, it's page 6. I've also provided counsel with each a copy

3
4

5
6
7

copies of the cases. In this case, if you look on page 6, the Court rules that, the trial jurors." "A trial court had correctly advised Your Honor, the name of the case is "It correctly advised

8
9

the People vs. Clinton Charles,

10
11

trial jurors that the prosecution need not prove allegations in an indictment that are extraneous to the material elements of the offense charged." And it went on to say that, "The use of the

12
13

14 15 16
17 18 19 20

conjunctive "and" rather than disjunctive "or" in the indictment charged more than the People were required to prove under the statute, and -- but did not bind the prosecution to prove all three acts." And it said, and I quote, Appeals said, the Court of

"Where an offense may be committed by the indictment may, in

doing anyone of several things,

21 22 23

a single count, group them together and charge the defendant with having committed them all, and a conviction may be had on proof of the commission of any of the one -- anyone of the three -- of the things, without commission -- without proof of the commission

24
25

19 - Proceedings

1
2

of the others." Also, in the other case that I handed to you, the Third Dept. case, and I'm handing over counsel a copy, and actually the relevant section is Section 2, on page 2; it's been highlighted for each of you, says that, "In a case that" -- the name of this case, Your It says,

3
4

5
6
7 8 9

Honor, is The People vs. Christopher Hagmann.

"Where an offense may be committed by doing anyone of several things" - THE COURT: MR. REED: Where are we? This is page 2 of the Third Dept. I think it's

10

11

12
13
14 15 16 17
18

case, People vs. Christopher Hagmann. highlighted for you, Your Honor THE COURT: MR. REED: THE COURT: MR. REED: Yeah.

It's on the right side of the - Yes,

I

see it.

All right, okay.

"Where an offense may be committed by doing anyone of several things, the indictment may, in a single count, as the" this is referring to the same "The indictment

19
20

21
22
23

language as the Court of Appeals case,

may, in a single count, group them together and charge the defendant with having committed them all, and a conviction may be had on proof of the commission of any one of the things, without proof of the commission of

24 25

20
- Proceedings

1
2 3 4 5
6
7

the others.

II

And, Your Honor, based on that case law, I -- it's the People's position that our Prosecutor's Information is not insufficient, in that we did the same thing that these cases did in the other case, in that we group the Prosecutor's Information in the conjunctive. However, we're not required by law, by the Court of Appeals' directives, to have proof of them all. We just need to prove one and, as counsel has

10
11 12
13 14 15 16

been well aware, it's always been our position that the defendants didn't engage in it, but they did agree to it. Also, Your Honor, if you look in the CPL; I'll hand you up a photocopy of the CPL, looking at Section 100.35, and I'm handing counsel THE COURT: MR. REED: I have it here. Okay.

17

18
19

This is a -- this refers to the form and content of the Prosecutor's Information and - actually, I need one copy back, sorry. And that section, it's states that, "In order

20 21 22 23
24
25

to protect the defendant's right to fair notice of the charges against him, the same rules governing indictments should apply to information charging

21 - Proceedings

1
2

defendant with misdemeanors in 'different ways' ," And, Your Honor, it's the People's position that our Prosecutor's Information is charging these defendants with a misdemeanor in "different ways" when we write, "They engaged or offered to agree fl , and,

3
4

5 6
7
8

"within the meaning of the statute requiring that each count in the indictment must charge separate offense and may not allege facts which would support convictions under more than one subdivision or paragraph." And as Your Honor can see, it's layed out

10
11

in People VB. Mitchell. Also -- and the site for that is 151, Misc.2d 208. And in that section it refers you to Section

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
2.2

200.50, and 200.20, and 200.40 of the CPL which all refer to indictments. So it's the People's position that the same rules per indictments apply to Prosecutor's Information. Thank you, Your Honor. MS. AL-SHABAZZ: THE COURT: Yes. Your Honor, I think the May I be heard?

MS. AL-SHABAZZ:

23
24

People's problem is that they are not looking at the statute that governs information. indictments. CPL 200.00 governs

25

CPL 170.35 governs the motion to dismiss

22 - Proceedings

an information and, in particular, the Subsection 1 . , talks about facial ufficiency. That facial

2
3
4

insufficiency is what we're saying is the problem. It's not that this should be regulated by what happens with an indictment. That's just wrong. It doesn't

5
6
7

make any sense, and none of the law supports that. It says -- particularly, 170.35 references CPL 140.00. It only references CPL 200.40 or 200.20

8
9

with respect to joinder in dealing with those things. The only thing that I think that the People have come forward with that the Court should use is that here it says, "When they mistakenly use" - Where? I'm at the -- the case that

10 11 12 13 14 15

THE COURT:

MS. AL-SHABAZZ:

they handed to the Court, People vs. Hagmann? MR. MOSER: Yeah. And I'm at the rst

16
17

MS. AL-SHABAZZ:

18
19
20

highlighted section, on the first column; last quoted paragraph. THE COURT: Okay. Where says, "Defendant

21 22
23 24 25

MS. AL-SHABAZZ:

contends that the use of the conjunctive "and," rather than the use of the statutory disjunctive "or," was a
mater~al

flaw which could not be amended.

'I

The

prosecution had moved to amend.

23 Proceedings

They haven't move to amend. posi

It's our

on that they can't move to amend at this

3
4

juncture, and that because it can't be amended under 170.35, it must be dismissed because it's facially insuffi ent. It's -- and as they try to make seem

5
6

like the "and" and the "or" is just a matter of a mista or it's technical, the case law that they Appeals case, People vs.
0

8
9

submitted, the Court

Charles, speaks of material elements of an

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

When you change an "and" to an "or," or visa versa, you significantly change the mate al elements that have to

be proven and the factual elements that have to be proven which speak to the defendant's notice and ability to put on a defense in its entirety. I don't think that the People have come forward with anything that the Court can hang its hat on. The statute that the Court has to focus on is

the defense's position is 170.35, and 100.40, and 100.35. MR. MOSER: to that? THE COURT: MR. MOSER: Sure. I, of course, join in everything Judge, can I just add one thing

24
25

that counsel just stated. everything.

I'm not going to repeat

24 Proceedings

Just, in addition, the case

People against

2
3
4
5.

Charles, is a 26 year old case which wasn't about a motion to dismiss. Apparently, this is a full trial

that was had, and this had to do with the Judge's instructions to the jury after the trial was already finished. And that was what was in contention which is

6
7

different than here, which counsel just stated was a motion to dismiss. This has nothing to do with

9
10

extraneous elements which the People are asking to prove. What the People have done is filed a

11
12 13 14 15 16

Prosecutor's Information which they've asked the Court now to change the statute to prove three elements crime knowing they can't prove one of them. And at this point in time they have to be bound by their information, by what they specifically stated information, other than that, it makes us guess throughout the trial as to what we're going to do. Is
a

17

18
19

it going to be engage, is it going to be agree, or is it going to be offer; which one

lS

it?

It's impossible

20
21 22

to know until this trial is over, so it's impossible to prepare. The first time I heard in an opening statement that there was something about a hotel and an agreement which isn't even in any of our discovery that was provided.

23
24 25

25 - Proceedings

And, therefore, I just reiterate my application to dismiss this case at this point in time because the People can't prove their information based on their opening statement. MR. REED: THE COURT: MR. REED: provisions THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. REED: If you look at CPL Section "The provisions of Just wait one second. May I be heard, Your Honor? Yes. Your Honor, just in referring the

3
4
5
6

8
9

10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19

100.45(2}, it's clearly states that, Section 200.70,"- THE COURT: MR. REED: I'm sorry.

100.45 -- go ahead.

Subsection 2, clearly says that,

"The provisions of Section 200.70 governing the amendment of indictments apply to Prosecutor's Information's," Your Honor. And I just -- as a rebuttal to both defense counsel arguments, I would submit to you that the Court of Appeals case that I handed up to Your Honor is control, and it's exactly the same situation that we have here, where it says that, "Where an offense may be committed by doing any of several things," which in our Prosecutor'S Information,
it'~

20 21
22
23

24 25

the People's position,

26 - Proceedings

1 2
3
4
5
6

that this is engage, agree, and offer to engage, indictment may, in a

nthe

ngle count," as we did, "group

them together disjunctively and charge the defendant wi th having committed them all." However, the conviction may -- you may find the defendants both guilty if you find that they only committed one of these acts, Your Honor. THE COURT: MR. MOSER: Anything else? No, thank you. Nothing further.

8 9

10
11 12

MS. AL-SHABAZZ: THE COURT:

Any other case law you want the

Court to consider, Counsel, Defense, other than Sections 170.35, 100.40, and 100.35? MS. AL-SHABAZZ: Nothing further. THE COURT: All right. That's correct, Your Honor.

13 14 15
16

17
18 19 20 21

What I intend to do at this time is to read over the case law and do some research on my own, because I just saw what you've highlighted and I need to read the complete case. case for tomorrow. MR. REED: And, Your Honor, I'd just like to So I'm going to adjourn the

22
23

remind you of the CPL section that I read. THE COURT: No, I know that section. Your Honor, if I can,

24
25

MS. AL-SHABAZZ:

27 - Proceedings

1
2

please? THE COURT: Sure. I just had an opportunity to

MS. AL-SHABAZZ: read -

4
5

I think the People cited 200.70 with respect to

treating an information as an indictment THE COURT: MR. REED: Law 100.45. MS. AL-SHABAZZ: something. MR. REED: Yeah, but that's what I read. And You said two hundred and I think it was 100 It's 100.45 which -- it's Penal

6
7

8
9

10
11

12 13 14 15 16
17
18

that's subject to -- and it said in 100.45 MS. AL-SHABAZZ: about THE COURT: MR. REED: It's 100.45. But it refers to 200.70.
200.70 or -

Okay.

I'm not asking

MS. AL-SHABAZZ: THE COURT: MR. REED: THE COURT:

100.45(2).

19

It refers to -- mentions 200.70.

All right.

20 21 22
23

Counsel, just approach.

(Whereupon, there is a discussion held off the record at the bench among the Court, defense counsel and the assistant district attorneys.)

24
25

28 - Proceedings

THE COURT:

All right.

The case is going to be adjourned to 11:00 a.m., tomorrow morning. Both parties have been

notified if they want to submit other case law or other information to provide it to the Court's clerk by 9:30 a.m tomorrow. MS. AL-SHABAZZ; THE COURT: Thank you, Judge.

All right.

(Whereupon, court is recessed and the case adjourned to Wednesday, January 20th, 2010 at 11:00 a.m.)

10

11

12

13
14

15
16
17

18
19

20

21

22
23

24

25