Appendix — Graham v. New York

Supreme Court—Apprllate Diaision

‘ 27

Third Judicial Department

July 31, 1980. 32356

Tiz PEOPLE OF Tux STATE OF NEW YORK,

Respondent,

Vv.

RICHARD B. GRAHAM, Appellant.

Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by reversing the

conviction of kidnapping in the first degree and robbery in the

first degree and dismissing the counts of the indictment therefor,

and, as so modified, affirmed.

Opinion per MAHOILY, P. J.

SWEEWEY, KAiE, STALEY, JR., and HERLIWY, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX A

#32356

STATE OB NEW YORK SUPREME COURT

APPELLATE DIVISIOi! THIRD DEPARTINT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WEW YORK,

Respondent,

- against -

RICHARD B. GRAHAII,

eed ee et ee ee et

Appellant.

Argued, June 19, 1980.

Before,

HOW. A. FRANKLIN MANCNEY,

Presiding Justice,

HOI]. MICHAEL E. SWEENEY,

HOW. T. PAUL KATE,

HOW. ELLIS J. STALEY, JR.,

HOM, J. CLARENCE HERLIIY,

Associate Jusilces.

APPEAL from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County

(Louis B. Scheinman, J.), rendered November 3, 1977, upon a verdict

convicting defendant of murder in the second degree (two counts),

kidnapping in the first degree and robbery in the first degree.

STEPHEN L. OPPLIGMEIMN, for appellant, 253 Broadway, lionticello,

Hew York 12701. .

JOSEPI JAFFE, District Attorney (Stephen Lungen of counsel),

for respondent, 6 North Main Street, Liberty, New York 12754.

OPINIOMW FOR MODIFICATION

28

-2- #32356

MAHONEY, P. J.

When this matter wes before this court originally (69 A D 2d

544), we modified the judgment by reversing the conviction of

kidncpping in the first degree and robbery in the first degree

and dismissing the counts of the indictment therefor, and, as

modified, affirmed, holding that there was no erroy in the

warrantless arrest since there was probable cause.

Thereafter, leave to the Court of Appeals was denied (48 UY

2d 980) as was a motion to reconsider that determination

(49 21 Y 2d 804). On May 12, 1980, the United Srates

Supreme Court, pursuant to defendant's application, entered the

following order:

The motion of petitioner for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and the petition

for a writ of certiorari are granted. The

judgment is vacated and the case is re-

manded to the Appellate Division, Supreme

Court of iNew York, Third Judicial

Departwent, for further consideration in

light of Payton v. New York, 445 U. S.

_. (1980).

In Payton v. New York (4465 U.S. ___, 100 S. Cr. 1371, supra),

the Supreme Court concluded that absent exigent circumstances, the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable

to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police

from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's

1 A complete recitation of the facts can be found in the reported

decisions (People v. Graham, 90 Ifisc 2d 1019; 69 A D 2d 544).

EE _ --

30

-3- £32356

home in order to make a routine felony arrest.2 It follows,

therefore, since Payton was decided after defendant was convicted,

that the new rule of criminal procedure propounded therein is

applicable to Graham's murder convictions only if such rule is

applied retroactively. We conclude that it should net be given

such retroacti, application,

We recently noted in People v. Albro (73 A D 2d 73, 75) that

"[t)he easy to apply common-law rule that cases on direct appeal

received the benefit or detriment of changes in decisional law and

that final judgments were not affected by subsequent changes is

no longer valid", it being our view that the instruction of

Johnson v. New Jersey (384 U.S. 719, 728) to the effect that each

constitutional rule of procedure must be individually analyzed to

determine if it will be given retroactive application must be

followed. In furtherance of such analysis, certain guidelines,

adopted by the Court of ‘Appeals (People v. Morales,

37 i! ¥ 2d 262, 269) have been established to determine if a

rule of constitutional dimension should be retroactively applied.

They are (a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b)

the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the

old stendards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice

of a retroactive application of the new standards (Desist v. United

States, 394 U.S. 244, 249, See also People v. Albro, 73 A D 2d

73, supra).

Agein, as we stated in Albro, the most important of these

factors is the purpose to be served by the new constitutional

rule (supra, p. 75), and that purpose can only be discerned by a

close examination of the rule to determine if the application of

the same goes to the "very integrity of the fact-finding process"

(People v. Buia, 34 ii Y 2d 529, 530; accord Stovall v. Denno,

3838 U.S. 293, 298). Thus, the Court of Appeals has concluded that

there is no sufficiently compelling reason for New York State to

establish a time of application for newly promulgated constitutional

rules different from that recognized by the Supreme Court (see

People v. Buia, supra, in which retroactivity of the rule of

Chinel v. Celiforniz, 395 U.S. 752 [narrowing the permissible

scope of searches incident to arrest] was denied on the authority

of Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646).

We turn now to a determination of whether the newly promulgated

constitutional rule affects the "very integrity of the fact-finding

process." In view of how that guideline was applied by our nation's

2 We determined that "[a) motel room is entitled to the same protec-

tion under the Fourth Amendment as the home" (69 A D 2d 544, 547, cit-

ing People v. Wood, 31 N Y 2d 975).

te ome me wee oe

31

-4- $32356

highest court in Linkletter v. Walker (331 U.S. 618) wherein the

exclusionary rule of liapp v. Ohio (367 U.S. 643) was denied

retroactive effect, as well as in Williams v. United States (supra)

and in Hill v. California (401 U.S. 797) where the rule of Chinel v.

California (supra) was held not to be retroactive, we are cotpelled

to conclude that the subject rule, i.e., that, absent exigent

circumstances, a warrantless entry for the purpose of a routine

felony arrest is unconstitutional, is not so essential to the “very

integrity of the fact-finding process" that all past reliances

upon existing statutory law should be negated so as to rehabilitate

with innocence those who by their intentional acts seriously offended

our penal statutes. Accordingly, we decline to apply Payton

retroactively and adhere to our original decision.

The judgment should be modified, on the law and the facts, by

reversing the conviction of kidnapping in the first degree and

robbery in the first degree and dismissing the counts of the in-

dictment therefor, and, as so modified, affirmed.

5 a i rhe, laa at” ‘ ee = , mone aan

/ , ; ‘

'

, #32356

neem ’

$7 » OF ULW YORK heh [Ee COURT

i ;

APPELLATE DIVISION THIKD DOPARTHENT

os oe

| TRE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WEW YORK, )

‘ }

Respondent, )

}

- against - )

| }

RICHARD &. GRARAM, }

)

Appellant }

Argued, June 4, 1979.

before:

HON. A. FRAWKLIN “ANONEY,

Presiding Justice,

HO. MICHAEL E. SWEENEY,

nOW. T. PAUL KANE,

HON. J. CLARENCE HERLINY,

Asseciate Justices.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Councy Court of Sullivan County

(.ovuis B. Scheinman, J.), rendered November 3, 1977, upon a verdict

convicting defendant of two counts of murder in the second cegree,

one intentional and the other felony murder, kidnapping in the first

cegree, and robb: | in the first degree.

r STEPHEN L. OPPENHEI!, for eppellant, 253 broadwey, Monticello,

Sew York 12701.

SIEPREM LUSGEN, as Special Prosccuior, 6 BR. Main Sircet,

wiberty, New York 12754.

OFINION FOR MODIFICATION

A

«

c

APPENDIX RB

33

ate 32356

MAHONEY, P.J.

A complete recitation of the facts can be found in the reported

cecision on the defendant's pre-trial suppression cotion (People v,

Grehem, 90 Misc 2d 1019). Briefly, Craig R. Mitton, who collected

ceily revenues from service stations for his employer, Mid-Valley

Petroleum Corporation of Newburgh, New York, diseppeared after

leaving company offices late in the afternoon of October 13, 1975

to sske a deposit, His vody, bearing three bullet wounds and marks

of a blow to the head, was éiscovered in Sullivan County two days

later, Over $25,000 in collections were missing. By the evening

of October 18, the police had learned that the defendant, Lucas and

two wosen were registered in rooms 307 and 208 of the Airport Travel

Motor Lodge in Dania, Florida, The rooms were enpty when the police

érrived and surveillence was continued throughout that night. At

epproximately 6:00 A.M, the next morning, the defendeat end his

party returned to their rooms, Due to a misunderstanding in comau-

nicetions with State Police headquarters in Middletown, New York,

the State Police officers assisting the Broward County Sheriff's

office in the investigation and arrest believed that a warrant had

been issued for defendant's arrest at 7:00 P.M., October 18, in New

York. Therefore, at 8:00 A.M., on October 19, the police entered

the motel rooms and arrested the defendant, Cnly leter did the

police learn that the warrant had in fact not yet been ‘ssued,.

After his arrest, defendant geve a full confession to the

police, This confession wes so detniled end consistent with the

fects which the polfce had independently uncovered as to constitute

oveiwheletng proof of guilt. The defencent's briefs, if a pro-

cuction which nusbered over 300 peges can still be called brief

(see Sleter v. Gallmsn, 38 N.Y 24 1, 5), when reduced to their signi-

ficent arguuentr, essentially challenge the admissibility of the

confession in light of an allegedly defective arrest procedure under

34

o Je $32356

the Federal Constitution and Florida lew. Of course, if the arrest

was gefective the subsequent confess{on could not be acmitted

tecsuse the connection between the arrest and the inculpsatory state-

“ent had not yet becone so attenuated as to dissipate the taint

(S:sea v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590; People v. Stewart, 41 NY 2d 65).

Sut we find no error in the arrest procedure,

A werrentless arrest ts authorized under New York law (CPL

140.05, 140.10) and Florida law (Fle. Stat., § 902.15). Such an

érrest say be wade where the arresting officer has probable cause

to belicve that the person to be arrested has comnitted a felony,

AS yet, the United States Supreme Court has not prohibited warrant-

Jess arrests following entry into a suspect's home even in the

fesence of exigent circumstances (United States v. Watson, 423 U.S.

411, 418, n. 6). Therefore, the legelity of the arrest in this

cese turns on state law,

Tr

4

A motel room is cntitled to the sane protection under the

Fourth Ancndaeat as the hone (People v. Wood, 31 N Y 2d 978).

Nonetheless, in New York a warrantless entry to make a felony arrest,

if besed upon prebable cause, {is pernissible (People v. Payton, 45

NY zd 300, oral arg. before U.S, Sup. Ct, March 26, 1979 [47 U.S.

Lew Wk. 3651)). The same result obtains under Florf{da law (State v.

reréz, 277 So 2d 778 [Fla.J, cert, den, 414 U.S. 1664; ieet v. State,

355 So 2d 489 [Fla, App.}). Thus, despite defendent's contention

otherwise, this case presents no choice of law issue. Once probable

ceuse is established, the arrest procedure employed against defendant

is valid,

Ca the facts before us, we find sufficient probable cause to

justify the arrest. Before they arrested the defendant, the police

pi ficers knew: thet Mitton had been the victim of a robbery and

tcer; that Luces and another person had beea scen near the bank

*s:€ to the time Mitton was to arrive; that the cefendant had

wcently been fired from the same job Mitton had; that Lucas end the

Cerencent had made plens to leave the area; that although neither

fices nor the defendent was registered xt the Dowatowner Motel,

Lucas left his car there, rather than at the airport; that the

cercadent and Lucas were registered in the Florida motel under false

ececesses; end thet Lucas had told a person in the Waldea, New Yort:

éerce not to disclose theiz whereabouts. Thus, the pclice had done

rore than serely place Lucas nesr the bank at about the time of the

vollery. Indeed, the police had rezson to concluce that Luces and

~an em ae

i“

35

-4- £32350

the defencent head fled the area. Flight is an Iinportant element in

establishing probable cause (sce Peters v. New York, 392 U.S. 40,

66$ People v. Kreichzon, 37 N ¥ 2d 693, 699).

Defendant also challenges the arrest because the police did not

gtve notice of their authority prior to entry, Hoth New York and |

Florida, however, permit noticeless entry for the purpose of making |

en arrest when the safety of the arresting officers might otherwise

2 endangered (see CPL 120.80, subd. 4; 140.15, subd. 4; Fla. Stat.,

£§ 901.17, 991.19, subdd. [1]), See alsoB nfieldv. State, 150 So. 2d 636

{-le. App.)). At the tine of the arreet, the police knew that the

cefendéant aad his conpanions hed teken a Doberman Pinscher with thea

to Florida. In fact, one of the erresting officers had wrapped a

towel around his arm prior to the entry for protection against the

enticipsted attack by this antral, Furtherwore, {t was reesonable

‘or the police to believe that defendent, a fugitive fran a honicide

in which the murder gun wes still mfssing, mipht be earned. There-

fore, defendant's objection to the noticeless chtry is without merit,

Assuning the warrantless search of defendant's cotel room

conducted after nis arrest was fisproper (see Chirel v. California,

3£5 U.S. 752; People v. Evats, 43 8% ¥ 2d 160, 165), in ligne of

the overvhelming case agsinst him ouce his confessten hed been

ecoitted, and the feint prejudicial impact of the “ruits of the

improper search, the error rust be considered tai -less. (see People

v. Crirzins, 36 NY 2d 230, 240-241; cf. People v. Grent, 45 NY 2d

366, 378-379). Defendant elso caintains that ite-s seized from

Luces' vehicle should have been Supprecsed because the warrént was

ecofective, Even if celfendent had stending to cake such

a challenge (see Ret-2s v. 1)1l{inofs, U.S. ____, 99 S. Ce. 421), the

-evrent issued for the sesrch of Lucas’ Lincoln Continental in New

“iTScy wes not fatally vegue. it cuthorized a scerch for “other

ivadence of a honicide” and beceuse it so limited the scope of the

sferch to one psrtfievlar crime 4t cannot be conet{ccred@ on unconsti-

tutfonal general warrant (see Ancressen v, Marvilcnd, 427 U.S. 463,

See elso Lo-Ji Sales, Inc, v, State of New York, iS. [June

ll, 1979}). Therefore, this evideace wes properly aczitted,

Defendant's remaining coupleints of illegal police ectivity are

Pot persuasive, However, two issues affecting sentencing rensin,

Livenvent asserts that since he ves coavicted of felony murder, the

hicepping and robbery cherges should have been diatissed as lesser

‘nc tuced offences, Since partictpstion in one of the enuntreted

r- Cccate felonies (sce Perel Lew, § 125,25, sudd, 3) isa regquisit:

on tt -

-5- 32356

of the crime of felony murder, if the defendant {s convicted of

clony curcer, the predicate felony charge must be d’sintssed (People

Vv. DeCsta, 64 A D 2d 929, lv.to épp. den. 45 N ¥ 2d 841; People v.

£

.

.

_——— ———

aa

2

2énes, 60 A D 2d 654; cf. People v, Shuzen, 37 NY 2d 302, 305.

Bet see People v, Nichols, 230 N. Y, 221, 225-226, cf. People v,

Perez, 45.N ¥ 24 204), In addition, the kidnapping charge merged

with the robbery since the abduction did not exceed 12 hours before

the victim Mitton dled, end because {it was incidcatal to and

inscpareble from the crime of robbery (see People v, Snith, 47 NY

2d 63; People v. Cassidy, 40 NY 2d 763). Mitton was only sbducted

in order to get the money he was carrying, Therefore, since the

nicnapping charge merged into robbery, only one prediccte felony

svevived end it must be considered included in the feiony murder

conviction, The judgments tmposed for conviction of kiccapping in

the first degree end robbery in the first cegree must necessarily be

véeceted,

The judcyment should he modified, on the law and the facts, by

reversing the convictions of kidnepping in the first degree and

robbery in the first degree and Cismissing the counts of the

indictaent therefor, and, as so mocitied, affirmed.

‘ : . ‘ : en

ere Pe | Yo a

ee 37

a

HE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YOKK

-against- OPINION

"RICHARD B, GRAHAM

RICHARD P, LUCAS,

!

| Defendants,

a (sa penesecee« cancvewnsnes —,eaneaeg

|

are ES:

L'MANUEL GYLLGAN, District Sttorncy of

Sullivan County, Court Heuseienticello,

New York 12701 ;

By: SPRPHEN F, LUNCEN, Assistant |

, Pistrict Attorney of Counsel

STLYHEN L. OPPENHEIM, Esq.

253 Broadway, Monticello, New York 12701

Attorney for Defendant Richard B, Graham

LEGAL AID SOCILTY OF SULLIVAN COUNTY

26 Lendfield Avenue;*tonticello, New York

By: MICHALL ZAGER, Fsoq. of Counsel

Atterncy for Defendsnt Michard P, Lucas

4

*sCciihda TAN, Je

APPFNNIN C

. 3 ag oe?

.

These are notions by defendants to surpress certain

tangible evidence seized pursuant to search warrants and also a :

'

earrantless arrest, and to suppress certain confessions or ig

‘ admissions. sil

The indictment charges defendants with the crimes of;

*ourder in the second degree, kidnapping and robbery,’

Although the cases have been severed for trial, these

hearings were combined and held jointly, pursuant to stipulation, +

'

This opinion will set forth the facts found by this

Court in waking its determination (C.P.L. 710.60 subd, 4). Although

different standards of proof are required on the several types of

Suppression sought (Peo, ve. Pooliner, 32 N.Y. 2d 556, clear and

convincing evidence test on notion to suppress evidence other than

a confession, and Peo. v. !tuntley, 1S N.Y. 2d 72, beyond a

roxsonadble coubt test es to voluntariness of a confession), this

Covit has found all facts wentioned beyond a reasonable doubt,

At about midnight of October 13, 1975, one Craig R.

Mitton was reported nissing by his wife, It was learned by the New

|

‘

York State Police that he hud been employed by the mid-Valley .

Petroleum Corporation of Newburgh, New York, as a route sales

supervisor, whose duties included collecting money from gas stations

operated by his employer and d*positing same each afternoon at about

4:00 P.M. in a night depository at a certain local branch bank,

The police learned froa company officials that on

said date of October 33 he had made up the deposit, which included

cash in four bays, and left for the nearby bank at a time which was

between 4:00 o'clock, and 4:45 o'clock

o3e

P.M, on that date, He was not seen or heard from thereafter, and

the said deposit in excess of $25,600 had not been sade,

On October 15, 1975, his body was found in Sullivan

Cgunty, with clear evidence that he had been the victiw of foul

play, his body evidencing 3 bullet holes, 2 in the head and 1 in the

back, and a blow to his head, '

The vehicle used by the deceased, which belonged to

his exployer, wes found abandoned in enother location, with a

chenge box,

The police learned from one Gloria Baker, who

',

personally knew defendent Luces, that ays Oi ock P.M, on October

13, sho had seen csfondent Luces sitting in a Lincoln autorobile :

with another unidentified person at the branch bank where the

deceased was to have cade the deposit, Gloria Saker also advised

the police that defendent Lucas had cohabited for a tires with one

Madeline Mead, euployed at the Middlehope Service Stetica, and

‘that defendant Graham had also Seen exzployed at sid service

Station, The police also learned from a Julia Tibby, that her

sister, Sherryl Kilb had gone on a sizrall vacation with defendant

Luces, another girl, Birdie, and another fellow, "Richie",

The police aiso learned frow coapany officials that

defendant Graham had held the sens position with Mid-Valley

Petroleum Corporation as the deceased, but had been fired about 2

weeks earlier for taking houe a deposit of approximately $30,090

without depositing same in the night depository at the sace bank

branch,

Julia Tibby had also told the police that Grahas

possesseda iandgun, Further inquiry disclosed that he had no

pirnit for sens, :

The police were also advised that defendant Grahaa ;

vere a gun holster on his person,

The police also learned that the defendeats were

fricads, snd that they aad the girls Sherry] Kilb and Roberta

Grahaa had left the area in the evening or night of October 13,

One Georgia Shorey had also advised the police that

Lucas, Sherry] Kilb, Graham and one Roberta Holces were together in>

the New York City area, and that Georgia Shorey had a soney-graa

waiting for her at the Kewhburgh Western Union office, subsequently

learnod to be in the sum of $100, from one of the defendants in

Florida,

Gloria tsker hed also advised the police that about

a week earlier, Lucas had called her to obtain the heys to the safe

at the Middichope Service Station, as he was in rood of woney and

that no one would be hurt, She refused, and subsequently she

received a telephone call from Luces telling her that if she told

anyone of their conversation he would sheot her, On that sane

ovening the said gas station wes burglariiod and woney and cigarettes

stolen,

Subsequently, ths police learned that Georgia Shorey

received a telephone call from Lucas advising her not to reveal the

whereabouts of the two dofendants and the girls to anyone,

The police leunched a search for defencants and

checked airports in the New York setropoliten area and located the

1S74 Lincoln at the Gateway Hotel in Newark, New Jerscy, near

Newark Airport, during the early morning hours of October 17, i

The Motor Vehicle 8Sureau confirsed that the car ‘

belonged to Lucas, A bartender st the motel identified e phot ograph.

‘of Luces, and advised the police that he had been tipped with a paper

bag centsining shout $8.00 in change, there heving been change a

missing from the change box found in the cospany car driven by

the decessed victin,

Py

The police also leained that dsfendent Lucas had an ! j

extensive arrest record with one or two convictions, The criess

tontioned on his record included crices of Violence and the use

_— em ee

of firearns,

A check #2¢9 with the Motor Vehicle Buresu revealed

that the Lincoln autowobile owned by Lucns wes @ 1974 nodel, and

ts license plates nusher, which matched the plates on the car,

Follosing the location of the autc.obile, the sane

»es placed under discreet surveillance by the New York State Police, |

end that afternoon other New York officers arrived, Subsequently,

at about ¢:00/08 the 17th, Investigators Chandler and Ovens,

together with a necber of the local prosecutor's office, appeared

before a Superior Court judge of the State of New Jersey and gave

testinony under oath before said judge in their application for a

Soarch warrant of the automobile, A transcript of said proceedings

wes received in evicence, showing that thore was preliminarily a

discussion with the Court, after which the Court placed the oral

application on the record, the Court capsulizing or sunwarizing

-U-

the facts giving rise to probable cause on the record,

An issue «as reised at the hearing as to whether

the officers were sworn during the recorded phase of the record,

which contains most of the facts abovementioned, or, as Investigator .

‘Chandler testified, when the initial discussion with the Court re

comssnced off the record, Defense counsel were given the opportunity

to confer with the New Jersey Court, and to call the judgs as a

witness to controvert the testimony of Investigator Chandler,

Aithough one of the defendant's attorneys conferred with said judge,

Ne wes not called,

This Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that all

of the foregeing facts were laid before the New Jersey Court,

under osth, which, in the transcript in svideuce held "I am a.

satisfied that there is prebable ceuse to believe that a criwve has

been committed end that there is probable cause to believe that

the autowobile sought to be searched and seized tes been

sufficiently established as the connecting link between the

covzission of the howicide and evidence of the crins," and signed

the search warrant (People's Exhibit 24A, p.J1).

A starch of the car wes then conducted by a New

Jersey police officer with 2 New York State Police officers in

attendance and assisting.

It should be noted, parentheticzily, that the rerson

the application for the search warrant was mwsce by sworn testimony

rather than by affidavit is recited in the New Jersey treascript

in evidence, i.e., that the application was made on a Friday, at

about 4:00 o'clock P.M,, and that there was, therefore, insufficient |

43

tice to prepare papers for the Newark prosecutor's office and the

probable unavailability of a judge on the weekend,

The search of tie Lucas" vehicle yielded

siscellaneous papers belonging to defendants Graham and Lucas and

a Dobra khilb, a rope, a rifle, shotgun shells, a hair froa the

trunk area, and other iters of proverty,

~

tee

All iters of perscnal property found in the car, snd

tha car itself, were inventoried and, with the approval of the New

Jorscy Court, rewoved to New York State Police Seadquartors in

hew York,

A check with the airlines in Nesark rovealed that a

"Nr, and Mrs, Richerd Luces” and a'itr, end Urs, Richard Grahaa” had

ceparted ous G:05 P.M, flight from Newerk to Fort Levderdale, Flori

on Octcber 14, The police also jiearned that defendants hed a

Dobercan Pincor dog with thea,

| 4 nusber of New York State Police officers flew to

Fort Lauderdale on the night of October 17, The following dsy,

Cctcher 18, the police leai:med from the Western Union office in

Florica froa which money-grars had been sent to the Newburgh, NeoYo

areca the address of a mute] in Dania, Florida, which defendants

Sad given to Western Union, It was further learned that Lucas and

Graham had sent an additional money-graz each to the Newburgh, N.Y.

sree,

It was also leasined that defe:dants has registered

at this motel under their own nares in 2 roors, but had given false

sddresses, anc had also rented a car aad motorcycle, that they had

a ee

ee

ss

ree

Sa large amount of money with them in travelers checks,

On the 18th, the New York State Police officers met

with officers of the Broward County Sheriff's departrcent and a

Renbor of the Florida Division of Law Enforcerent, filled them in

on all of the foregoing facts, including those earlier weckaiels

herein in dealing with probable cause for the autezobile search

warrant obterined in New Jersey, and a surveillance was taintained

of the 2 sotel rooms occupied by defendants,

The Florida police requested a teletype tessage from.

New York, cescribing defendants as fugitives, The New York police

ie such request by telcphone, a nd also for an sreest warrant

to be obtsined in Wew York, The teletype cessape Cirecting the

arrest was recoived in Florida before 8:00 P.M“, on the i8Sth, Hovever,

it appears that although the officer in charge of the investigation

in New York requested that an arrest warrant be obtained here, the

San9 was not obtained until October 29, However, the officers

Lelieved that the warrant had been obtained and wes in existence

prior to the arrests,

Defencants and the 2 woren with them retumed to the

iotel reams st 6:00 A.M, on the 1Sth, Helleving them to be armed and

with a vicious dog, the police waited until 8:90 A.M. wien without

werning or notice, the police officers simulteneously, with the

use of a passkey to one room, and through an unlocked door to an

tejoining room, entered both rooms with drawn guns end one officer

with a towel wrapped cround his erm as a precsution against the dog,

ind arrested the defendants, who, together with the 2 woren, wore

tsken to the Sheriff's Gepartrent in Fort Laudercale, where they

ah ie 45

arrived at 9:00 A.M, There was no dog in the room, it having been.

placed with a veterinarian a day or 2 earlier, nor any guns found, ,

Detendant Graham was Siven his full “Miranda”

Warnings 4 tines, once in the sotel room, upon arrival at the =

Sheriff's Department, before waking his confession, and at the

be ginning of his confession, which was tape recorded, On

2 occasions, at 9:00 o'clock and 11:00 A.M., he signed written

scinowledgaents of having received these warnings and, specifically

waived counsel, xs he also did orally at the conuencerent of his tape

recorded confession,

A typewritten transcript of Grahan's confession was

received in evidence at the hearing, (which Grahen subsequently :

refused to sign) und this Court listened, in carsra, to the tape i

recording of the confession (by stipulation), This Court is

Satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham inowingly,

intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to renain silent and ;

to counsel,

The confession, which took 45 rinutes to tape, was

coapelted oraily st 11:45 (the sexe day as the arrest) and in brief

substance sets forth the following:

Luces, who wes his friend and drinking companion,

tad faztliar with handling of the moneys at MideValley Petrolous,

Suggested the roboery of Craig Mitton to Grehen who agreed to

participate, On Uctober 13, they waited for the victim at the breach

bank, held him up, Luces ordering Mitton into Lucas? car, Grahas

following in Mittun's station wagon, They drove to a lovely country

trea where they sbeudoned Mitton's Car, Ordering Mitton into the

-10-

46

trunk of the Lincoln, Twey then drove to another isolated ares,

Lucas and Grahan discussing the fact that Mitton knew Grahan as My

co-euployees of Mid-Valley, Lucas insisting, therefore, that they

had to “blow hia away", When the car “as stopped, Grahas opened 3

¢the trunk, Mitton was ordered out, Graham hit him over the head

knocking him down with a Club, and while Mitton was on the ground, :

Lucas shot hia in the head and back area several tines until his °

fun jammed, and then left the body of the victia there, left the

murder scene, picked up the 2 wonen, disposed of the handgun used

in the Ailling im a stream in New Jersey, etc. its told of taking

the money, about $26,000, including change from the change box, he | '

ad Lucas Placing vost of the money in safety Ceposit boxes in 2

banks in Newark, purchasing travelers Checks, and leaving for

Florida, tie exonerated the 2 wonen frog any implication in or

hnowledse of szid Crimes,

Lucas refused to make any staterents to the police,

On Oct, 21, both nen were taken before a Court in

Florida, and waived extradition to New York, Lucas after conferring

with counsel which he had requested,

It should be “entioned here that Graham testified

in his own behalf at the hearing, sad Claimed that he ‘ad been

beatona a an officer Reidy of the New York State Police about 10:00

A.M, while in the Sheriff"s office in Florida and his confession

thus coorced, This Court is convinced that said claim is a pure

fabrication, as Investigator Reidy had little or no contsct with hie

subsequent to the arrest and prior to the confession, Reidy having

retained at the rote) after the arrests and removal of defendants -

assisting Florida Police in inventorying the property found there,

~~ oem we

. “ '

.* ~~ 02 6 text

ry . “* .* 4

‘ . 6 ‘ . ®s “

Also, Graham claimed marks on his torso from the slleged dSeating,

having evidently forpotten/‘he testified that «hen processed at the i

N.Y. State Police barrucks upon his retum he had been photographed, -

front and rear, with absolutely no evidence of sans, nor had he

camplained of eny mistreatrent to any other police officer nor to

the Florida Court when he was brought before said court,

“7 ¢ -_——

The hearings also covered an inculpatory statenent

wade by Luces on the airplane trip back to New York, It is clear,

t38 *

even from the testimony of Lucas at the hearing, that he was not

mistreated in any way, and that his remarks to the police officer

seated next to hi« on the airplane were voluntary, unsolicited, and,

after being warned before he spoke that his statensent could be used!

“against him, Nor was such stetevent the result of any interrogation,

Lucas werely cenied making the statenent, and whether he did or did:

not would be for a trial jury to decide, ; f

An issus developed regarding a coxboy type hat worn

by Lucas, This hat had been returned to Luces in Florida, and he

wore it on the trip back to New York, However, after processing at

oe —~— ww, | -

the state police barracks, he inadvertently left it there. The

police, then realizing it had evidentiary value, kept it as evidence, -

. te

Lucas also seeks its suppression,

Based upon the Graham confession and its meation of ‘f

the hiding of the moncy proceeds in safety deposit boxes in Newark, “<4

the police obtained the names of the banks and the numbers of the

accounts, and applied by written sworn applications to the sare

.

New Jersey court for search warrants on these 2 banks and respective

safety Jeposit boxes, obtained the search warrants, and searched and ©

scised the boxes and venk records pursuant thereto,

Returns on all search warrants were duly furnished

to the New Jerssy Court, and upon order of said Court, all selred

property was returned to New York State (including the car and its

contents).

Lucas's safety drposit box yielded $10,342.00,

Crahaa's safety deposit hox yielded $19,893.00,

| It should be noted here that defendants called

Rederta ilolmes and Sherryl Kilb as their witnesses, The woren

testified that they were taken also to the Sheriff's Repartoent

in Florida, were given Miranda varnings and both made statements

to the police, They wers wedl treated, trhen back to the motel, the

police asking the arrungerents for their return to New York and |

transportation to their res;ective hones, Grahan had given Roberta

iiolmes the keys to the safety deposit box which she kept in her

purse, end she had no objection to the police taking the keys.

These keys were of the safety dsposit box rented by Creham, Lucas*

keys to the safety deposit Lox rented by him were avongst the

property reaoved from his roon, :

An issue also developed at the hearing as to whether

the 2 women were arrested in the wotel roons, This Court finds fros

the evidence that they were, in that their aovenents were restrained,

they wore taken to the Sheriff's office and not advised they were

free to Icave until after they were interrogsted and after Crahae’s

confession when the police wore satisfied that they had no knowledge

of the crisos, *

This Court further finds that Jue to the foregoing,

and the police initially nwt expecting the worsen to be returned to

49

tho retell, that all the couteats of the rooms wccunicd by the

vefendaits wsre inventoried and renoved to the Florida sheriff's

office for safekeeping, and, after certain belongings were

weturned to the women upon their relezse that Cay, 211 the rest of

the property was turned over to the Now York State Police for

return to New York,

On October 20, while the 1974 Linceln was still in

teow Jersey, the isunk interior was dusted for fingerprints ,and

fingeiprints of the decersed, Craig “Mitton found,

~ if . .

Lefendents seek suppression of al) aters of evidence -

seized in Now Jorscy, cleisming shsence of provahle cause for the

Scarch wavrants issued by the Now Jersey Court, and suppression

Of all cvidence obtained in Florida by reason of the claired

iMieyslity of the arrests there, (ncluding suppression of the

confession by Crahan as a result of said arrest, and of the

mmculpatory statecent sade by Lucas, They also seeb suppression

of the firegerprints found in the trunk of the car, cf ‘ucas* hat,

etc, Miscellanvous other prounds are sugrested by Cc fendants for

the suppression of all the foregoing, ,

Defense couisel argued etrenvously that, with respect

to the Wew Jersey searcies, the Florida warrantless arrest, search,

Scizure sid Comfessiuns or admissions, that New Jersey and Florida

Jews, respectively, apply. They anintain thet cuder the laws of

such States, the evidence ohteined in said Stetes sheuld be

Supptesssd pursuant to applicable case and/or statutory law in said”

States, respectively,

This Court is by no ceans convinced that New Jersey

or rlerida laws differ significantly in their anplication to the | c

“

i

-

x?

.

ek

respect te the evidence scught Co be suppressed obtained in such

*

50

frets ‘sie Fron New fork law, So otpert tentiisny wes offered with

Fespect te the lews of such States, although citations of New Serssy /

and Fiorida cases and Florida «ttstutes wsre asde in their briefs.

Thus, a threshold questica aust be detersined by this -

Coprrt, t.¢., whether the lews of such States are to be epplied with

Ststes, cr whether our evn laws govern with respect to the

acvisssbility of such svidsnce,

Counsel heve cited no ¢ ses bearicy vpon this

comfliet of lives questirn, and, indeod, this Court tas not been sble

te vnenrth «ay “ow York cesa@ ctveling with this conflict of Inews

prodlex in the crfntinal iw acaa,

Turaing to other jurisdictions feced with this

y

gewation, thers tre Coses pessuesive, however, ca this rcint. In _

Burpee ve “tote 4638 Sd 2d 720 (9999) the Cofendont wes convicted of :

Durglary and etterspted rape in Terac. Vo was a resitent of the 4

Stete of Ubdctesa, end zhile he wes im Torts custoly, hts wife,

ot his Oklehess residenco, pernitted police uflflcs.s to sexrch their

hevs fo Otlehosa withcut a warrazt. Contrary to Texas law,

Chitho.g grants to each spouse a pesscaal right to dsisad a search :

sifreant for the svarch of the aasrciteol residsnce, Upon seid search “sg

“

which wes ssds without the consent of the defendant, incrictinating

eVidance wes found end adsitted at the Texas trial,

The Teras Court found the question to be evidcatiary

nd proceducal du nature, and thus governed by the lew of the

fooue, od affirroed the canvictioa,

4

‘

In People vy, Saiker, 49 I)1, 2d $04, 275 N.B, 2d 282 :

¥

(1273), the Suprese Court of I)linots, faced with the sacs problas

>

cfart ad ten OP coprouch, aneteing the “siawi ficant reliatiorship*d

vr “ceuter of gravity", cosflict of laws ruie. The vefendene in

said case wes canvictod in lllinois of conspiracy to ohstruct

i

gustics by coacealing the hody of a surdered victiw on his fara in }-

the State of Indians. The victia had been curdsred in Illinois,

hor hedy tyeensported to and buried on the defendant's fara fa

Cots Saee

Ss w result of certein infornation cbtntned by the

police es to where the bedy wes buviod in Indicaa, an T1lisols

yollea officer obtained a search warrant from a jedgo in Indisena,

senrehsé 3t the fara and recovered the body of the victia, The

offices cit .pox which the search warrcnt was proedicstod was bated

upon heavery Lafersaticn ind coneleetcas of the police officer,

ctaarky anrvtfietent ender Indiasa law, although adsquete undor the

las of tha Forum stata, [iiinots. the evicceuce wes satnitted at

the Tllinofs irial,

The Illinois Supsecs Court, citiar Sur

Syd athor euthocitdies, cphold the conviction,

The Court policted out that, trecittcnally,

conflicting prtaciples proscribed that issuss of clearly procsdural

tature sve governtd by the Truss of the forus, wherees substantive

watters a.e controlled by the laws of the state whore tho trensaction

occurred, Yot, with respect to conflicting stvts views concorniag

Feweth Aovuecrvsat and otter rights, the Inw hes Seen chonsing and

ta older rulas are being replisced by xore fiexible cules such es

the wale “significsat reicticnship”™ with each of the sistes ia

wvestica. The Court went on to suy thet if the prebien vreseated vas

corsifeved Froe the prosedural-substance viewpoint, that the

_——<

.

a, 24

We dibs its +. S

~—*%

-16: os mo

52

evidence ve4s property acitted for ten recsons, i.e., that

evicentilary questions aro cencrally governed hy the laws of the

forum end tecendly, that if the conflict concerning the chedce of |

lev involves tho prslintnary issue of whethor the ovidsnce was

droagfully obtelasd, a substastive natter, thea fros the viovpoint |

of che “alondfiecust relationship” or “center of grerity”™ rule, the

gignvific at ecantscts in that cass were with Illinois {fn that the

crits “as cennitted there, wes being prosecuted there, ésfendant was

a rectidomt thera, the great majcrity of witnesses were Tlilinots

vesiccats, thst Indisns had no vital ccoatect with the crime, and :

‘ehat the vuphieattion ef Lllinots evidontdary law would not offend |

ihe coolty of Interstate rulatlorsips tetewcen Irdlena end Illisrots,

ned cifiase d the conviction,

Thes, wo see that the Tllinots Supress Court <pplied

the meJoana cus flict of lows rules applicable in ti.e civil srea to

the critinal c se before it,

we cena elso cnstugize, in tho civil «rea, to New

York ceces om the subject. The trend tn eur stits bes clso becn to

epoly the Jew of the stato which has the strongest interest in the

-gesolution of the pesticular issue presented, Teference here to

only surcatl of the wiay Pow York ceses on the subject should

nee tlie

ae of the sarlier cad lending cares is Babcock v,

Jockeon, V2 NY. 2d, 673 (L965), derling with tort Mfabtlity. Tn

yooek Nom York

_——e no -

poople went in a Mew York registered suto~bile

for @ weetoud trip te Ceoseda, im accident eccurisd in Interio

causing paaserrxl injuries to cae of the New York pessangers.

Catarioc forvsce # suit by the passenger cgalnst the criver orner,

Tr the Yew York suit, defendsnt soved to diswsivs the cotpleint ca

the besis of Ontario lew, Specivl Tera granted the wtion, and the

: .

-_

Sypellote Division affirsed,

The Court ef Ap, cals reversed. Reviewing the

6 : oe

5

Sistory of this conflict of laws question, the court held that the

sulstestive lew to be epplied would be that of the stete which hes

tle stiorpsst interest in the resolution of the particular issue

presented,

This approach has been referred to os the “interest

anclysis” approach,

la Furhar Vv. S-3lack, 20 N.Y. 2d 198, “another

-'gliguace c.se, ell parctes wore resicsnts of New York, Doafendane

t the Genur of the uutomobile lonned to the others for a trip to

Slorida, On the ssturn trin, and in North Carol%na, there wes en

aceddeut as a result of which an actien wes Srought in \ew York by

the acdsfaistrator of one cf the decsased pessengeors killed ia the

secideat and guardicn of sa Infont Injured therein =s --11 as dy

“vother pessengor, There was a difference between Now York and

Nerth Carolina nw with respect to the issus of Ilability ef the

cwner, The North Carolina iaw required the jury to find that the

use of the automobile was for the sbsentee ouner’s herefit in order

to fwpose tinbility. The court followed “abcock, also citing

Macoy v. Rozbick#, JB N.Y, 2d 249 (1960) in applying New York lew.

Also following the “interest snalysis"” cpproach

with respect to a contruct involving the Stwtute of Troudcs is

Inturcontizentel Piasniay, timited v, Dorystrom Incorsorated, 24 N.Y.

26 372 (1989(, tu which the court seid;

“jluwover, as we view this cease, it is

unnecessary te characterize the Statute 5%,

of Freueds us citer substantive or e

procedural since New York law sheuld be ,° §

applied in either event, If the statute 4

be viewed as procedural, there is no reaty

problem since the law of the forun would A

z

:

be applied, Likewise, New York's Statute

of Frauds would be applied es the law of

the State whose law gevernus generally if :

é the statute bho considered substantive x,

since New York hes the parasount interest oi

in the application of its law in this re

case. (Cf. Matter of Crichton, 29 N.Y. "1

2d 124, 133; Matter of Clare, 2) %.Y. 2d ;

478, £56; cf. Miller v. Willer, 22 N.¥.2d |

32, 18-16.)" ea) |

pe.

See also Tooker v. Lopet, 24 N.Y. 7d 569, (1989), an >!

trspact to its application to the facts tn that case, roferring also-4

suterobile accident case in which toth the sajority and cinority of.

the court used the “interest enalysis” spproach, hut differed with | Y

to ssue ¢«S “grouping of contact" or “center of gravity” (p.590) and: A

“coatect theory of governusatal tatersest theory” (7.596). The =

Cisseating jostices felt that the law of the place of the accident

should govern the conduct and quelifiedly the status of person,

residents and non-residents, within it, excent in the coxtraordinary.

situation where the localization of persans end condvat is

adventitious, Tisy felt that, under the particular facts of that

sase the greater contact and stronper interests sere with the state

in which the eccident had occurred, It fs interesting to note that “3

Pssociate Justice Jausen, concurring in the éissent, sa! authored the

‘

SLL LO A

epinion for the eajority in Intercontinenta> Pieunios, Limited, supra,

handed dawa two xeckhs carlier, co

A third line of cases refer to the cetcrrent cffect on”

police consuct tf an illegal search in a different jurisdiction were

suppressed. Of course, we ald understand that searches, arrests and |

*

confessions sade in viulation of Fourth and Fifth (aad

Fourteenth) Anondsent rights are to be suppressed wherever uade,

However, a forum court can make its own deterzination of

constitutionality, subject to cverriding federal cxse puidelines,

“icra evidence is illegally obtained, in violation of local law,

but sot rising to constitutional proporticns, the ferun court

con teject the law to be applied, and consider, in atcition to the

preceeding approaches of Burpe, supra, and Saiken, sujra, the

ceterTrence spproach,

In Pen le v, Oriosky, 40 Cal, Epp. 34 935, 135 Cal,

Soptr, S28 (L974), Incisvna pollee received consent from defendsnt's

wife to search the paritul residence in connection with a local

Inciasa crise, Upon such search the police found evidence of a

» California crine, and transnitted sacs to California authorities

whe initiated a prosecution there, the court holding such evidence

cnissable uncer Califovata law despito its illesgrlity onder

Indiana law, The Court applied the “sovernanental intevest”

approech, It also exovined the deterrent apnroach, the reeson

for the exclusionary rule, snd found that police coraduct in

Indiana «ss not "dirty business", and that the

police conduct was preser under California lew.

A Now York case dealing with a confession “ade in

» SS AW, 24 969, Although the

Califerata is Peon ls v. avis

conflicts of lows qucstion was not discussed, the Second

veparicent held, with citation of Teleral and severs) ‘iw York

cases, that a confession

ee ee en — — —— ne ee ee eee eee Ta: stay , 2 — OO eee

-20-

56

outained fron defendant upon lis arrest in California violated his

Sth auendnent right to counsel, end suppressed the sare, The cases ©

cited by the court, and relied upon by the court, did not involve” ie

conflict of luvs questions, The Second Departeont evidently simply.

‘applied New York decisional law in deteraining wooether the 7

California confession shculd be suppressed, |

Applying the ferecoing principles to the case at bar,

it is apparent that the State of New York hes the greatest interest

in this cese, including the New Jersey searches, the Florida arrest; .

searches and confessions or swdeissions,

The 2lleged rurcer, hidnapping and robhery occurred J;

in Wew York State, of a New York State citizen, The defendants were

at lerst residents, If not dosiciliary, of New York, Alwost all r

witnesses in the Sew York prerecution are New Yor’ residents,

This Court will not say that neither New Jersey nor

Florida have any interests in this case, as undoubtedly those

stetes do have an interest in police conduct taverds trensients or

visitors within their esspective territories, Nut such Interests

ere ainor when coupared to the overvhelning New York interests in

prosecution of such heinous crires as here comtitted ancngst its

own yesicents on its own soil, Indeed, the police activity in New me

Jersey and Florida ess swainly conducted by New York State Police

efficers with the assistence of police cfficers in said states and

the use of fncshities in suid states in aid of the New York State

police officers,

Further, the application of New York law in this

instarvce suuld not oftend the comity of interest relstionshinp hetscen

sew York and the orher states involved,

o23- “57 7

Mer worndd the owlice conduct in ice Jersev or Florica,

if illeral (which this Court does not find) require suppression as

4 wee “~. .

a ceterreat,

> |

=

Se

~

-

Accordingly, this Court will apply New York lew with

¥

respect to the New jersey and Florida transactions, subject caly to:

. ¥

overriding federal law dealing with safeguarding Fosrth end Fifth *.

a.

fecnetent rights of these defendants.

The facts sade known to the New Jersey Court sere

eone $0 under oath, Lven though the transcript of ssid epplication

indicates the oath having been administered to Investisators

handier and Ovens during the recorded and transcribed portion of

the processing, Chendier’s testimony that said oath was actually

talen by him prior to his unrecorded testinuny to s2id court is not.

only uncontredicted, but cefendants were given the oprortunity to

ferafy sous with the New Jersey Court and call the judse as a

Witness, «hich this Court would atrainge, but, after discussion by

counsel with said court, they did not call hiws,

In detersiring whother or not there ws« rrobable

ccuse for the issuance of a search warrant, the criticel fects and

circusstances for the reviewing court are these which were rade

hnown to the issuing magistrate at the tive he deternined the tt

warrart application, (People v,. Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d 396, 402;

People v. licndrichs, 25 N.Y. 2d 129, 138; Beanle v. FelLaco, 15 N.Y,

2d 229, 292, cert, den, 383 U.S. 963; People v. Meinev, 14 N.Y. 2d

35,38). See also People v. Brown, $0 N.Y. 2d 163, is which a search -

aarreat &25 uphold even though an informant was interviceeed ly the

issuing sagistrate without being under oath, and without his

testimony being recorded, although the sence was referred to later by =

the ccurt on the record,

: ‘ . ' !

The Fourth cased sat to the U.S, Corstitution. and

Article 1, Section 12 ef the New York Constitution rejulre that

Py pte v7 m

~~

search warsvants be issced cely upon probshle cause supported by

‘cath or affirmation, A written application in efficavit fora is

sa07

we

‘not ebsolutely required, An szexple in New York is the People vy,”

‘Brown case, supra, whete an oral application ender cath Sy the

Be

sewer fe

Su Aen

Pr

‘ hee

police officer, and cn of f-tho-record ciscussion with the inforrant,

vhese taforssifon was cssential for probable cause,»#s Seld to be +3

sufficient, asd ia substantial, if mot literal, ccapdiance with i

C.P.L. 699.38 (21). a

In the case at bar, there was clearly a sufficient 3

basis for the New Jorscy Court to find prebedle cause for the ia

issusnce of ma varennt for the seerch of the Lincoln autoaobdile, {S

fad the socuriag ef a varvent Sy the police will presuue their :

“bens fides cud tho subseqeent search upheld in a covdifel or -

“parginal cese (People v. Hinton, 36 N.Y, 2d 549, $563, zlthouzh } :

¢o net cunsiver the probable cause issue here to be foubt ful or ‘

xarginal, Sco alsoker v, California, 374 U.S. 253). 3

The automobile itself beccre evicence in this case, *

particularly aftor the finding cf deceased's fingerprints is the :

tronk interfor, and, with the authority of the New Jersey Court, "3

properly yewored to hew York.

Nor docs the clain by defendants that the car ~o%

sezrched on October 17, and agsia thereafter, aad ¢dested for

fingezprints on the 29th indicate any inproper or uneuthorized

couduct by the police, The car was constantly under surveillance by_

the police, urd after obtairing the starch warrant, cscy took

;oesecsion of the keys and ssintained constant contre] over the car:

ce

in cesiying oot the search and testing for fiugerpricts, which they

. - .

*.

RT Me ————— —_— <- « ee ee ee ee ee

’

tt.

ve

‘

were futhozizred to do,

This Court also detersines that the arrest of the ‘~%

defendants in Florida, 2s it turned out to be without a warrant,

w

ee

*- °

28 leavful cpon several greunds,

‘ This Court finds xs fact that the arrest of the

UzfanJiants was for the purpese of apprehension aud prosecution for

the cantlened criaes, and not 2s a subterfuge for an otherwise

vunlaeful sesich or interrogation,

At the outset, it is cicar that an interstate

bulletin (teletype ucossage) can furnish probable cause for a

vatraitioss search (Yeorle ve. Lyptajo N.Y, 2d 219), So, too, can

ee eee + ne one oe

pellce cfftcers sske an areest upon a radio bulletin, telephone or - R

teletype alert From fellow polic: authority (Whitely y¥. Werden, 401. 1,

U.S. 559, S685 People v. liorowitz, 21 N.Y. 24 SS, 69). Slowever,

despite the foregoing, on a suppression hearing the dcefencdsat say ’

.

.

question the besis for such courunicntion, and ultirately, upon such :

toartnyg the People cust dsvonstrete that the senver or sending 5

agency itsclf possassed the requisite probeble cause to act (People

v¥. Lvpka, supra, ood cases cited therein). , ia

Under C.?.L. 149,10 a police officer may arrest upon

.

. : Bs

“roansoveble cause” to believe that the persona has comsitted a crine, &

"Peascnable causo” in such context is the sae as “probable cause"

as such latter term is used in the Fourth Anendaent (racer v. U.S.

358 U.S. 397, 310; People v, Fields, S9 A.D, 2d 570; Foonrle v,

Leuberdi ,18 A.D, 24 177).

“ee?

rebable cause” has been defined as a roensonable

pround for belief of guilt, ehich is less than would iustify

enye ct: Bitate . 1

conver 583 02 (srinessr Per

te»

_———— ee ee

3 ca eee, e Pte oe ae

SS8 U5. 360, Teenie v. fies, supra),

Not only did the Florida police ave the toletype

ousanication directing the arzest, but the ‘ew York State police

officers were physically present and had conferred with the Florida _

Selice officers, filling ther in on #22 the facts which eere the

visis for probable cause,

Accordingly, finding prohable cause fer the arrest

of cofoncinte, this Court helds that sare was law fud.

Additionally, the police officers tad the genuine

velief that the New York arrest warrant had Leen issued on the

!sth, ,

Tie Florica police, in effectiny the sarrantiess

arrest, did so tm a tanner consistent efth New York law. Under

C.P.L. $73,354 w@ poldice officer Hef wTrest aA person awitiiout a

WeeTont “von reascaable information” thet the accused stances

Custged in anether state for a felcny,

fhe arrest of the defendants did not viclate any of

their Fourth fvend-snt richts,

The entry into the rotel roosrs by use of a passhey

vbtained frees the vrotel canayer und by centering through an

undosked coor from sn odjolining rvom, but withouse acvance notice

as justified in view of the feces that the murder mcapon had es

yet Leen undiscovered and there «es roesonable hrounds to bolieve

that defendants were so arieed, thut they had a vicious Jog, all

Cf shich sould endanger the safety of tae arresting oificers, ond

+ 61-:

could also result in the wel ruction of evivonce (C.?.L. 149.15,

subd. 4, and C.P.L, 129.80, subd. 4). (See also watlca v, ilayden,

387 U.S.294), if

‘

The Court finds that the search of the 2 motel Rene

mccuyied by the defendants and their ferale companions did not

wiolate their Fourth Ausndnent rights, for 2 reasons, i.e., as

incivontal to the luwful arrests the police were entitled to

Search within the room of eech defendant for the wurder weapon and

eviesnce (Chies v. California, 395 U.S. 752;

Peorle v, Fitzpatrick,

32.N.Y. 2d 499, 508; Anwdor Gonzales Ve_U.S., 392 F. 2d 308 with

Tespect to fruits of ths Crite, Instrusentelities used to conceit

the ester, Contrsvand, terial which Constitutes cvictence of the >

criwe or that the sirestee Coswitted sane), znd secondly, the need

for the Florida police to iuventery, renove, and safesusrd the

Contents, being unsure of the status Of the women at the tive of

the crrests of the vefendines,

The confession of Groham after extensive snd peneated

"Siranda” warniags, covonced within 3 hours of tis arvest snd 2

jours after his ayrival at the Srowsrd County Sheriff's office, was

weluntary end after intellisent and bnowing eaiver of his rights to

‘veatn silent and counsel, There is me credible evidence in this

sccord of uny Oveisceaching by the pelice, histreatrent, sor any

other police conduct to taint the Sias, This court Sas also had the :

Senefit of listening to the tepe recording of sane, end agrees with

the testineny of the police vificers that Graham Zesired to he

“cooperative’,

It should here be pointed out thar tf, azyguendo only,

tiere were any infirmity in the arrest, that the confessien is 3

’

:

story wsdeisrabiec,

In Foomle ve ‘fartiner, 37 N.Y. 2d 292, the court

held that a cenfession rade aftcr an unlseful arrest and search was

SG stivnusted frem the search es to perait use of sare, He

However, in suppressing a confession nade izne diately

ie

sfter sa unlasful arrest, in Peorle v, Stewart,41 N.Y. 2d 65, 70,

t!e Ceorrt shed vore light en when a confessicn is or 35 not to he

considered so integrally related te the unlawful arrest as to

require suopression, cr so attenuated as to persit the same in

evidence. In Stewart, supra, the police officer stopjed Gefendaat

on the sttee@ pursuant to a police radio call based upen an

"noayuous tip to the effect that a person bearing Jsfendant’s

frseriptiscn had a gun, fristed defendant unlewfully, searched and :

selicd bublots and @ gon. Upon questioning at the strtion about ; s

the gun seftsed, Stesart confessed to a robhery €urtag which he

acquired the gun. he i.ens were suppressed, the Court saying:

"In cuntrest to Martinez, the interrogation here «2s concucted by }

ths saws officer within a linited tins fraze, and the Fruit of the ;

or.eSt, the gun, wes sn inteyrxal part of the subsequent admission”

(70). 7

In distinguishing Hurtiner, the Court said: "The » e

.¢

bey factors in Mertinut were the absence of a purpeseful exploitation —

of the initial tllegsiity by the police, the lack of #2 casual link

.otecen the challenged volice conduct vad the statererts sade end

the existesce of a valid independent basis for the subsequent

a]

MTETTIOEAti on.

This Court belfeves the Msrtiiez Sey factors to be

-

-

preScut here, In srresting Lucas and Gratvar the solice acted in the

-l)- P ‘

63°

~¥

pood faith belief in probable cause, and their ovrnese was not

intcrropation, but prosecution, There was no “purpese ful

2e3- 3°

eaploitsation™ of the arrest, 2s a1) the probable cause factors, if.

rot justifying an arrest, warranted interrosation of the defendants,

at the very least, for which there was a hesis valid aad b

Andspencent of the arrest. Fer the sans reasons, the arrest was

not ihe cause for the interrogation,

In Brown v. T)linois,422 U.S. 5995 6 ceaber eajority

of th Court suppressed 2 confessions nade after an i}legal arrost |

ond search, The sajyority pointed out that the exclusionary rule is

'

Calcslated to deter the police fron encaging in violating

constituticnal rights by sevoving the incentives to disregard thes

(599,609) but cade clear that despite its broad deterrent purpose,

the sule ‘as never beon interpreted to proscribe the use of :

iliegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons, |

Citing cases (699). The majority then went on to hoid that the

Michipan Court’s selience solely unon interventag “isante warnings,

as a fifth Avendvent saleyuard, wes insufficient to cleanse the

Fourth Acsndsent violation (to shich the purpose of Jeterrence also.

attaches). The sajoriity then went on to point out the evil of

unlas ful starches and seizures for the sole purposes cf investigation,

Or Interrogation, The majority suppressed the confessicas because

the search of defendant's spartrent and Sis arrest were Clearly

without probavle cause, bLnown by the police officers to he

uriewfal, “the flapgrancy of the official concuct", tits police

acdaittiny in their testinony that the purpose of the ezrest was.

(Lelleving en arrest warrant to de in existence), the serest heing

“for investization” ot fer “yucsticning™ (604,605).

The remaining 3 justices wrote 2 concurring opinions

wiuerein Mr. Justice White concurred on the grounds that the police +

“;new or should have known" that the arrest was absent probable

cauge, while the resaining justices, concerned with the cost of

poplying the eaclusionsry sule as a acterrent, would apply the sare

to flagrunt official sisconduct, and «ould ellow the confessions

: warnings :

where "“effoctive” Mirenda;/ vere riven, and the ensuing ccofession

vere vweluntary in the Fifth Amendsecnt sense (612).

It can thus be seen that as recently as June 26,1975, :

it was the feeling of all of the justices of the Supreve Court that 4

even though the search or arscst say be unlawful, if the polices ).

neted ia poed frith, believing there to have been profhable cause dl

for the purpose of prosecution snd not for the purpose of

investigation or questioning, Saving an independent basis for

juesticcing, and the intarvening effective Miranda waisings, that

the confession should not bo suppressed,

The foregoing discussion in this opinion which

attcunmes, arguendo only, thet there was inadequcte probable cause for

the arrest should not be interpreted to sean that this Court doubts os

there was provable cause, but, instead as merely a recognition of *

its Fallibility. $

The inculpatory statevent made Ly dccfendant Lucns

cn the alrplene returning to New York was wade without there having

heen any violation of his constitutional rights. After having been

piven his Miranda warnings on several occasions in Florida, he =

refused to talk to tle police officers, According to %1s own

~\

, eae

/, |

‘

4

65 oe

testiwony he was well treated and not questioned furtter., On his

appexrence before a Florida Court where he waived catradition, he

requested,and was furnished, with counsel to whom he spcke, On the

airplaac, cefendant initiated a conaversztion vith Investigator

heidy, and wes again acvised that anything he said would be used

acaieet hie, Despite this warming, and without any interrogation,

he enquired sbout whether he covld deal with the District Attormey,

that he way have been involved in the crive, but did not do it all

hirself, or words to that effect, Tafencant, in his testircny

verely denied heaving nade this statecent. This issus will be for

atrial jury to deteraine,

There is 10 requirenznt that the police stop a

person from volunteering a confession or admission, nor are such

vOlunteercd Stateionts Sarved by the Fifth Anondrent (lirenda v.

Aricona, 364 U.S, 436, 478, Pcopie v, Gary,31 N.Y. <d 65; People

Kaye, 25 N.Y. 2d 159),

The search warrants of Octeber 29 for the 2 safety

drposit bozos in 2 New Jersey banks were supported by affidavits

cleerly st:owing probable cause, based upon the evidence used to

obtain the search warrant for the car, the confession xnde by

Grahea who described the transactions with the hanks and the hiding

by him and Lucas of money from the robbery therein, ‘Search warrant

returns were all filed with the New Jersey Court end said court, by

order, authorized a]l seized items (including the car) to he

removed to New York.

in this regard iat is inportant to note that Roberta.

Nolmes, called by cefenctants, testified that she had no objection

to the pelice taking the keys from her purse, Roth she and

in

+

an io

‘ , 66

Gofensant Gresham testified thar Uratan hed fiven her the heys on

Getover 14 in New Jersey. Consenucnt) the safety desosit boxes

{ Y, P) i

in New Jersey would have heen @iscovcred by the police in any event.

For reesons previously stated, the comboy type hato

iuadvertently left by Luces at the New York State Police Darractks

nites being processed was not the product of any scarch. Upon

seuliting that it had evidentiarcy value, the police sicrly hept and |

have vefused to retur it,

It cppears that the polfee are ¢till in pessession

ef wany iteus of personal belongings end property of the defendants

‘which sere the result of the automobile search and inventory ia the

CLel £29 9, which have no evidentiary value, The pistrict Attorney

hall be directed to turn these noacevidentiary itess s.er to such

‘eesens as the defendants, presently incarcercsted, shati dizect,

All notions to suppress physical evidence

confession cf Grahaa and the tnculpatocy statesent of Loces are

cenied,

Tho District Attorscy siiall subnit. the Cider hereon,

COSTED: June 16, 1977,

ps

.

At e@ Term of the Appellate Division

3 of the Supreme Court of the State

of tew York, held in and for the

Third Judicial Department at tne

Justice Building in the City of

Albany, New York, commencing on

the 19th day of June, 1939.

om eww * ee

PRESENT: i

HON. A. FRANKLIN MAHONEY,

Presiding Justice

HON. MICHAEL E. SWEENEY

HON. T. PAUL KANE

HON. ELLIS J. STALEY, JR.

HON. J. CLARZNCE HERLIHY,

Associate Justices.

STATZ OF NEW YORK ;: SUPREMS COURT

APPZLLATS DIVISION : THIRD DZPARTM=ENT

dabcdaeacadeaseonnccsqnwasccccccesscceaconscocese x

THS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

Respondent,

~against- Indictment No.

RICHARD B. GRAHAM, 67-75

Appellant.

pcbswesndneweeneesonacascasecsccesoss coccoeccores= x

The appellant, RICHARD B. GRAHAM, having eppealed

from a judgment of conviction of *he County Court, County of

Sullivan, rendered on the 3rd day of liovember, 1977 upon 2 :

verdict convicting the defendant of two counts of murder in the |

second degree, kidnapping in the first degree and robbery in the

first degree, and by order of the United States Supreme Court

dated May 12, 1930 the above matter was returned to the Appellate’

Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judici2l Department, {

for further consideration, and pursuant to said order said eppeet

APPENDIX D. 4 ‘

-

-_———

{i ° 68

' having been presented during the above-stated term of this Court |

and having been argued by STEPHEN L. OPPEIMZEIM, ESQ., of counsel!

for appellant, and by STEPHEN F. LUNGEN, ESQ., as special pro-

secutor for the respondent, and, after due deliberation, the

i Court having rendered a decsion on the 31st day of July, 1980,

| it is hereby

i ORDERED, that the judgment be modified, on the law

H and the facts, by reversing the conviction of kidnapping in the

first degree and robbery in the first degree ane dismissing the

'

| counts of the ind‘ctment therefor, and, as so modified, affirmed.

ENTER,

/s/

“JOAN'S.

Dated and “spi August 13, 1980.

A | rr COPY:

oo —

69

estate of Mew Work

Court of Appeals

BEFORE: HON. LAWRENCE H. COOKE, Chief Judge

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ,

Respondent , CERTIF'CATE

against DENYING

LEAVE

RICHARD B. GRAHAM,

Appellant.

ae

yew

I, LAWRENCE H. COOKE, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of the State of

York, do hereby certify that, upon application timely made by the above-named appellant for a

certificate pursuant to CPI, 460.20 and upon the record and proveedings herein,® there is no

question of law presented which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals and permission

Request for oral hearing denied (see CPL 460.20

to appeal is hereby denied

[subd 4)).

Dated at Monticello ,» New York

December 26 ,19 80

Chief Judge

_fe

*Description of Order: Order of the Appellate Division, Third Depart-

ment entered August 13, 1980, modifying, on the law and the facts,

the judgment of the County Court, County of Sullivan, rendered Nove m-

ber 3, 1977, by reversing the convictions of kidnapping in the first

degree and robbery in the first degree and dismissing the counts of

the indictment therefor, and as so modified, affirming seid judgment

by convicting defendant of two counts of murder in the second depree.

* Desentption uf Ordeex

APPENDIX E

Items Seized at Search,

(Dania), Plorid

Exhibit 3

46

47

43

49

50

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

APPENDIX p

Description of Itens

Approximately 109 vhotos

in an album

Travellers checks taken

from wallet

Chechk»ook

2 Western Union receipts

and Travel Lodge receipts

taken from wallet

lionda key and rent-a-

cycle receipt taken from

wallet taken fron pants

Receipt for safe deposit

box and key found in wallet

Claim check for car in

Newark

Weatern Union receipt,

airline ticket receipt,

American fxpress recaipt

for checks

National Car rental

contract taxen from

briefcase

Times watch, miscellaneous

receipts, nail clinper,

shield number from hoo

and ladder company in

Walden, New York

Eastern Alrlines ticket

receipt taken from

brown briefcase

Black address book,

$145.88 in cash, comb

taken from pants pocket

Receipt for safe deposit

box, two red key cases

each containing a key

taken from purse of

Roberta Holmes

‘

APPENDIX F

Airport Motor Lodce, Fort

a --~- October 19, 1975,

70

Lauderdale

Deseribed at

R/A pace

526, 555

527, S228

529-530

439

531

532

533

71

59 Taxi business card of

teil R. Bucklin taken

from wallet 533-4

69 Travel Lodge receipt

taken from pants pocket 534

61 Wallet taken from

pante pocket 536

62 Longine watch, silver

necklace, man's nocklace

man's gold wedding ring 536

63 Dog race track paramutual

ticket and program 535

64 Brown plastic briefcase 526-537

65 Black leather briefcase 537

66 hat 537

4 Delta Airline ticket

envelopes 570

One pair of two-tone blue

jeans 593-595

One maroon T-shirt with collar. Pair of panty hose. One blouse,

lady's blouse. Child's sweatshirt, "Parrot Junale, Miami, Floridg

written on it. Second child's sweatshirt, "Parrot Jungle,* writte

on it. Lady's one-piece body shirt. A movie Camera, taken fron

the room of R. Graham, Dania, Plorida, Travel Lodeco Motel, a

Fodak Ektasound 140. And an OKAY used vehicle deater warranty to

Cheryl Kilb of Newburgh, New York. A mascara applier. A chain

containing a Jewish star in silver color. A plaatic bag from

Parrot Jungle with the name Cheryl on it. Paper bag. A Fodak

camera case, town tones, of brown leatherette, containing an

instruction book for Polaroid SxX-70 Land Camera. And two Sx-/9

Polaroid Land Cameras. That completes the contents of the brown

suitcase.

In the first box is a pair of chino men's parts. Pair of brown

men's pants. A brown embroidered western man's shirt. A brown

man's suit jacket. A green, white and blue man's Hawaiian type

shirt. Brown man's leisure suit jacket. A brown type work

leather belt. A white T-shirt, man's, with "Port Lauderdalo,

-2-

a)

72

Florida,” and birds on it. A man's green chirt. Pair of red and

white polka-dot men's swim trunks. A white man's sleeveless

T-shirt, undershirt. Another undershirt. A third undershirt.

Two pairs of men's white Jockey shorts. Pair of blue socks.

Pair of black socks. Two black combs. A tie clasn in the form

of a truck. And another tie clasp with two horse symbols.

In the second box is a men's beach shirt which matches the swim

suit. A blue floral shirt. A blue and light brown and gold

man's shirt. Pair of under shorts, red, black and blue and

white. Another pair of under shorts, red, blue and white in

block design. A man's white sleeveless T-shirt. Pair of man's

brown pants. A man's blue with light piping cabana shirt. A

pair of swim trunks wich matches the cabana shirt. A blue man's

leisure suit jacket. A light blue palr of pants. A man's light

blue leisure jacket that matches the last pair of wants. A man'g

brown leather belt. A pair of dark blue and light blue diamond

pattern design -- two pair of black men's socks in oriqinal

wrapping. Fair of brown socks. And another belt, leather on ong

side, suede, rust color, on the outside.

Items Seized but later returned to other persons

Description Described at R/A pace

Automobile 366

Motorcycle 366

2 While motorcycles helmets 369, 569-70

Brown lady's purse 369

Miscellaneous papers of Cheryl

Kilb 369

$47.87 in cash 369

Brown suitcase with

miscellaneous women's toiletries 369

Lady's suede purse s 370

$24.54 in cash 370

Items of men's clothing 587

73

APPENDIX G

Item3 Seized in Search of Lincoln Automobile at Gateway Downtowney

Mctel, Newark, New Jersey, October 17, 1975.

Exhibit 6 Description of Itens Described at

R/A pada

1 Bag with assorted raq3 33

2 Vacuum sveepings from

various areas of car 34

A. Vacuum sweepings fron

right front inside 34, 55

B. Vacuum sweepings from

rear seat 34, 56

Cc. Vacuum sweepings fron

left front 34, 56

D. Vacuum sweepings fron

left rear 34, 56

Qe Vacuum sweepings from

right front interior 34, S6

P. A hair from trun’: (34, 56

GS. Vacuum sweepings from ’

right rear interior 34, 56

ne Vacuum sweepings from

trunk interior (34, 56

I. Ashtray contents 34, 56

3. Miscellanious papers from

trunk of car consisting of: 34, 57-62

eavelope of the Empire National Bank stam dated Aucust 19, 1975,

and an envelope of one Geldenning Place stanped date July 15,

1975, sealed. Mobile receipt for $19.29, January 29, 1975.

Empire National Bank 24 hour teller receipt of July 1, 1975 the

amount of $50, 1520297. A piece of small note pvaner addressed

with Foney and signed Sheryl. A box rent receipt, United States

Post Office, Walden, New Yor, June 19, 1975 to R. Lucas, ¢233.

Bank Americard receipt for $5.25, June 25, 1975 to Richard

Lucas. Empire National Bank receipt for the sum of $300 dated

June 25, 1975, serial number 151461. A receipt. truck stop of

Pennsylvania, amount of $7.06, June 6, 1975. A receipt of J.I.

Russa & Son Jewelers, Wrlden, New York, dated March 26, 1975 in

sum of $31.20; A note on the back of a picca of paper headed

miscellaneous genoral voucher containing the name Leland Sisson

APPENDIX G

a

74

a letter of Highland Telephone dated August 6, 1975 addressed to

Richard P. Lucas; a receipt of Rhulen Sisson to Richard Lucas

Lucas dated May 29, 1975 showing a bank balance of $100; a

receipt of Rhulen Sisson to Richard Lucas dated “ay 29, 1975 for

$160 rent; a receipt of Leland Sisson to Richard Lucas dated

August 7, 1975 for side eas a Bank Americard receint for

$10.30 dated June 26, 1975 for the of Fast Stroudsberg,

Pennsylvania; Union 66 receipt of June 5, 1975, $7.85 to

Richard Lucas; Empire National Bank 24 hour teller receipt dated

July 17, 1975 the sum of $239.36, 153200 is the serial number;

Peoire National Bank 24 hour teller receint dated July 9, 1975

for the sum of $250, number 152673; a wace deduction sheet of

Cooper-Jarrett, Inc. for June period ending June 14, 1975

showing the net pay of $395.50, check number 276011; Empire

National Bank 24 hour teller receipt of June 5, 1975, the sum

of $190.77, 1150565; a Carroll's matchbook with writing figures

on it; a small piece of note paper dated “ay 3, addressed to

whom it may concern, signed Carol A. Lucas; an Empire National

Bank checking account miscellaneous debit of March 24, 1975

contains inward to clese the account; an envelope with a

window containing a notice from the general notice acceptance,

layed claim due Gated August 5, 1975; a Bank Arericard receipt to

Richard Lucas from Rob Rohl, Inc., in the sum of $6 dated June

21, 1975, Bank Americard receipt to Richard Lucas from the Truck

Stops of America dated June 22, 1975 in the sum of $8.25;

Empire National Bank 24 hour teller receipt of August 7, 1675,

serial number 1545, $276.50; Empire National Bank 24 hour twller

receipt Dated August 2, 1975, 154227 in the amount of $236.33;

Empire National Bank 24 hour teller receipt dated July 21, 1975,

153511, in the amount of $50; Empire National Bank 24 hour

teller receipt dated July 24, 1975, 153652 in the amount of $50;

Empire National Bank 24 hour teller receivt dated July 26, 1975,

153762 in the amount of $25; Empire National Bank 24 hour teller

receipt Of July 26, 1975, 153761, $25; Eroire National Bank 24.

hour teller receipt of August 7, 1975, 154523, in the 15

amount of $50; Empire National Bank 24 hour teller receipt of

August 7, 1975, 154524 in the sum of $25; Empire National Bank 24

hour teller

receipt of August 14, 1975, 155013 in the amount of $50; a check

of Richard Lucas, 198 drawn on the Empire National Rank to

Night Market, $10; check to Richard Lucas, 191, of August 7, 1975

to Leland Sisson $160; check of Richard Lucas, 189, Leland

Sisson, $190; check of Richard Lucas number 195, August 12, 1975,:

Grand Union, $10; check of Richard Lucas, 197, August 13, 1975,

Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, $10.25; check of Richard Lucas,

#194, Night Market, August 7, 1975 for $10; check of Richard

Lucas, #196 of August 13, 1975, Daniels & West, $17.33; check

of Richard Lucas of August 5, 1975, #193 to the Grand Union,

$10; check of Richard Lucas, $188 of July 21, 1975 to the Grand

Union, $15; check of Richard Lucas, #190 of August 1, 1975 to

the General Motors Acceptance Corp., #154 then I have a check of

$185 July 22, 1975 to Charlie's Market, $19; check of richard

Lucas, #187 of July 27, 1975 to Florence Lucas, $25; #186, Richard

Graham of July 25, 1976, $24; a check of Richard Lucas $184

July 17, Prudential Insurance Company, $25.42; check of Richard

Lucas #182 Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., $27.05 of July 17,

1975; check of Richard Lucas #174, to the Prudential Insurance

Co. for the sum of $25.42 of June 30, 1975; $1832 BAC, July 17,

1975, $50; statement of account of Richard Lucas for the veriod

opening July 18, 1975 and dated August 15, 1975; an envelope of

the Hichlané Telephone Co. addressed to Richard Lucas, wage

statement of Cooper-Jarrett, Inc. for the period ending July 12,

1975, in the sum $239.36 for check #281637; wace statement of

Cooper-Jarrett ending for the period of July 26, 1975 in the

amount of $236.83, check #284269,

MR. OPPENHEIM: Wage statement for check #278859 for the period

ending June 28, 1975, net pay $51.04; wage statement for check

#2828-16 for the period ending July 15, 1975; wage statement for

check #780108 for the period ending July 5, 1975; wage statement

for check #27-3885 for the period ending May 31, 1975; Bank

Americard receipt from the Truck Stops of Pennsylvania to

Richard Lucas, dated June 22, 1975 for the sum of $38; wage

=

—

76

statetent for check $274421 for the period ending June 7, 1975

to Reichs Banknotes for 20,090 marks but I don’t know what kine

of marks; a personal money order receipt of the Empire National

Dank of April 28, 1975, #145628 to the Orange County Probation

Denartment; a wage statement for check $2727 -- period ending

June 21, 1975;

Described at

Exhibit § Description of Ttens R/A pace.

4 Miscellaneous papers 35, 65-6

from the car consistiag

£:

a plastic flag, from Great Adventure, Sheryl; a draving signed

Bevins, dated October 11, 1975 with writing on the bac«,

Virginia Bevina; a printed slip of Eastern Airlines bearing the

writing flight number 157 having bi-centennial terms on it; a

receipt #260941 Holiday Inna of Daytona Reach, Florida, covering

the period of October 3, October 12, portion of an hastern

Airline ticket, starved October 3, 1975, NYC canned to Daytona

Beach; a card with back writing including flight nutter 1573

a piece of lined note paper with various writing includiag,

"dad, waxe me up before you go to wor%’; an American Express

Card application, signed nichara B. Graham, Sr., October 3,

1975, Fastern Airlines envelope with a ticket -- peckaae stub

attached for flight 157 to Naytona Beach, that’s ¢licht 157%; an

envelone of the foliday Inn west of Daytona March addressed So

Mre. Anthony Parisi with a letter inside dated Octover 9 actares3a%

Gran and signed “love always, Richie."; portion of an 2astorn

Airlines special service ticket $229623, stamp dated Setober 3,

1975; small piece of unlined note paper having on it various writin

including Avis 253-3133; an envelope addressed to the Spivak Agency

Inc. having a handwritten notation on it of flight 19%; ;

Exhibit § Description of Items Describe at P/A_page

5 Papers from rignt front ’

of car consisting of: 35, 66

a cumpled package of Benson & Wedges cigarettes, a package of

four cigarettes, wrapper from a piece of Wrigleys doudlement

chewing gua; a matchboo%, rore cigarettes; a matchbook, Poodtovn;

—

—————----

Page Missing from

Filming Copy

I}

78

1521342139759; a receipt of Tonv'’s Parking and Lockers $2341; a

membershin cared in plastic of Blackrock Pish and Game Club,

1017; a plastic card of the Wife Swappers Club International a

membership car! of Blackrock Fish and Gate Club, $136; a receint

of J.C. Penny Co., Inc., 675631 for the sum of $56; a color

photograph in the bag says to Jeff with love alwavs Sirdcie;

another card of tiyerest Cory., $5619951; a group information card

of the Hartford Life Insurance “o., Hartford Life and Accidant

Insurance Co., Hartior! Acct len). and Intlennity Co., noliev holder

being the Nycrest Corp; a slip of paper recetpt of Mav 9, 1975

for $149 fron Jay Jay MeCor;: a areea of flea vere of July 19,

197% being a thing of certain items sold to Fdward J. Walford;

Slip of paper with the name bona to Aveesa Wolurad and other writin

a clain check of Madio Shacl., ‘iy 24, 1975, 21549753, 4 receipt of

Walden Auto Tarta, Inc., #109257 of Janvary 39, 1975, the name of

Walt Kency on the back and ether figures; a recetint of Gulf,

#2549632, $25 marxe? raid in Full: a repair tac an@ invotce of

Radio Shack, $033336, dated May 19, 1975; a elub rember card of

Iee Cave Mountain, 1974 in ti: iame of Tria Agrovan: a card of

Newbura’: Part tfotor tne. wi

aT Leh: che word Tex ani nuspers on the

back: a penay arcade photo of a cirl with writirs on the bact,

"to Bichie with all my love"; sclaccive cervice reaistration of

Richacc Barcsiey Griuisa, Jre3 noiice of classification of Richard

B&B. Graham, Jr., July 39,3959; evecvint of somt*ing Weavereo, Inc.

of June 17, 1975 in the sum of $25.99; custorer sicnature eard of

Richard B. Granan, $634-3L7 and a resident fishing license

§4F619309, for the period Cctohber 1, 1973 to Senterber 30, 1974;

Exhibit

Description of Items Described at R/A_ nade

9 Miscellaneous pavers

from glove compartment

consisting of: . 37, 69-91

a red leatherette Tezaco road atlas; envelope, 7.9. Box $861,

Middletown, New York, of August 25, 1975, containing Bank

Anericard stateszent to Kichard Lucas for the billing period

——_—_——oe—eo

79

8/21/75, also including a blue notice, Bank Americarda is now past

due; a purchase of Mobile 0il Corp. of July 28, 1975 for the sun

of $10.30; and a pamphlet which starts, "most people like puzzles,

but not when it comes to paying bills."; envelope of P.O. Pox #96:

of September 25, 1975 containing a Bank Americard statement, billi

period Septerber 22, 1975, a blue slip saying, “your Bank

Americard is now past due"; and a card dated October 17, 1975

showing a ba’ance of $894.39; a purchase of Sunoco of $11.75 of

August 31, 1975; a purchase card of Sunoco of August 30, 1975, $12

a purchase cara of Auqust 29, 1975; Exist 31 Motel, $31.93; a

purchase card of Blue Ridge Motel of August 30, $29.96; a

purchase card of the Mohawk Motor Lodge of Aucust at, av7?S, $23.54

a Bank Americard flier headed “you may now recuest a cash advance

from $50 up to your available credit line balance; mailing

envelope flier; Bank Americard for the purchase of an all-weather

jacket; an envelope of the DPmpire National Bank of Newburgh dated

September 18, 1975 with a statement of Richard P. Lucas dated

Septerhber 16, 1975 containing an Empire “National Bank white and

gray unfilled out check of Richard P. Lucas; 205, Auqust 23, 1975

a Neil Buckland, $12; check 277, September 4, to Beneficial Pinanc

$26.61; a check of Lucas, 202, August 20, 1975 to the Grand

Union, $15; check of Lucas, 218, September 6, 1575, Village of

Walden, $4; #214, August 28, 1975 for cash, $30; check of Richard

Lucas, #199, 8/14/75, Charlie's Market; check #211 dated

August 28, 1975, BAC, $50; #209, Leland Sisson's, in the anunt of

$190 of August 28, 1975; #207, August 26, 1975, Mike's Marke:,

$10; #215, August 2 to the Woliday Inn, $2.26; check $216,

September 2, 1975, cash, $30; $206, $8.25 to the Grand Union --

$25) $203, 8/21/75, to Charles Rakowski for the sum of $100;

#204, Richard Lucas, Capitol Finance, $8.28; a check to Richard

Porsyth in the sum of $180; check §203, August 27, 1975 to the

Grand Union for the sum of $35; notice if insufficient funds and

charges of the Empire National Bank, August 29, 1975, $15; notice

of insufficient funds and charges, August 23, 1975 for a check of

nS

-

ae

_ om = SS

— _ ae eee eee OS ee

}

80

$10; notice of insufficient funds of August 26, 1975 for two

checks, one of $15 one of $25; an insufficient fund non-

collected funds, returned check credited of the rmpire National

Bank, August 26, 1975, for the sun of $15; insufficient funds

and uncollected funds, and return check credit of Auqust 28, 1975,

for $10; Empire National Bank 24 hour teller receipt of Audaust 235

1975 marked paid August 25, 1975, dated August 23, 1975, 155576 for

$25; Empire National Bank 24 hour teller receipt of August 21,

1975 #1155446 for $25; an envelope of the Highland National Bank

of liewburgh, Septesber 2, 1975 containing a Continental Insurance

Co. certificate of insurance on loan or account 00-1"-6-2199; a

Highland National Bank of Newburgh payment book which only payment

stub one is taken out. The rest are here on account numer

318002109; New York State Insurance indentification card issued to

Richard P. Lucas, effective Gate September 12, 1975, expiration

date, March 12, 1976; a Plastic envelope containing a certificate

of registration issued to Richard P. Lucas for a 1974 Lincoln,

9990-490; a retail installment contract sicned by Richard P. Lucas,

Daniels & West, Inc., dated August 12, 1975: a letter of Daniels

& West, Inc., form letter with warranty, dated Aucuste 12, 1975; an

envelope of New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated

August 21, 1973 containing a certificate card Saying “contains

certficate of title of a vehicle", New York ftate Incentification

card to Richard P. Lucas, period June 12, 1975 to March 12, 1976;

form, NV50.2, used vehicle certificate of the Department of

4otor Vehicles; odometer certification, Daniela & West, Inc. ‘or

1973 Chevrolet that's a yellow one; another one, odometer m.leage

rtificate of Daniels & West, Inc. for a Lincoln Continental; a

ales statement of Daniels & West, Inc. to Richard P. Lucas

vering the 1974 Lincoln dated August 12, 1975; all of those

tems being in clear plastic envelopes; an envelope of William EF.

Pleary, Metropolitan Life, 603, Port Jervis, New York addressed

to Richard P. Lucas containing a lot of blank envelopes starped

fo William E. Cleary, Metropolitan Lifa, Box 693, Port Jervis

8)

i New York, the exact number of those envelopes, white envelopes,

is ten; Western Union money order receipt, Mod, 905688, $109 to

Carol Lucas; a box of the Empire National Bank addressea to

Richard P. Lucas, inside the mailing box is another box, Spirit

of America, inside that box in a flier for the Bicentennial

Anerican Revolution, Spirit of America checks: a green and white

form bearing inspection 932695; a checkbook of Richard P. Lucas

of the Prpire National Rank going from check 251 to and including

check 275 with unused deposit Slips at the back; another check-

book going from $276 to 300 with unused devosit slips on the back

and an envelope in green and white which has open lines for

addresses, no addresses on it; and envelope with the printed stamp

of Morristown, New Jersey, containing therein a receipt fo the

Beneficial Pinance System of September 17, 1975 showing a paynent

ané other credit of $54; a flier of the Seneficial Finance

System, special announcement for cousins, parents, etc.; a gray

envelope bearing no writing on the outside except first class

mail, place postage -- necessary postace here contsining tvo

windows; a form, BC30NYED, January '75 which starts out according

to chapter 29, article 34 of the general business law of New

York; an envelope from St. Lukes Hospital, Richard Lucas spelled

L-U-K-U-S which as not been fully opened from which TI can extract

a balance due, bill of August 9, 1975, the sum of $69.23; a card

of the Double R Electric Service, Inc. with writing on the back;

@ paper napkin; and a card of Brownell “Motors, Inc.; card of the

Mohawk Motor Lodge; receipt of Sun O1lof August 30, 1975, ticet

7020021 in the sun of $12; A Bank Americard receipt of Auqust 31,

1975,, Mohawk Motor Lodge, $23.54; half a match cover of H.E.

Harris & Co.; envelope with the words L & D written in hand out-

side and contained therein a summons with notice and action,

Pearl Appliances, Inc. against Richard Lucas, to which is attache

a schedule A, a bill of Pearl Appliances; an envelope from P.O.

Box 563 addressed to Richard Lucas and containing thernin a memo,

‘igr., Pinance Service, Inc., dated August 15, 1975; and a notice

82

to Assignor dated August 15, 1975 signed by R.G. Cervo; a

* checkbook of Richard Lucas containing ono check filled out #213

dated August 28, 1975, Valley National Bank, and containing sone

money; unused deposit books; notebook page, Septerber 9, 1975,

Dear Luke, signed C and Tom; a card, pink card tatooing;: a

receipt of the Chauffeurs Warchousemen and Helpers of America for

$12, August 15, 1975; another receipt of the Connecticut Turnpike

for $50; customer receipt for United States money order,

#19252126923, $25; the date is July 21, 1975; a piece of lined

note paper, headed one-half cup cider, vinegar; a payment receipt

of the Pinancial Service, Inc. for $8.21 of August 21, 1975; an

envelope, first class mail prestampe4, Des Moine, Towa containing

therein a receipt statement from the Financial Service, Inc.,

to Richard Lucas, Gated Septerber 23, 1975 and shows amount due o!

$92.25 and also contains therein an envelope with windows --

thrae windows and inside shows pink and white candy stripes; a

card of Rick Porte with writing on the back; Bank Americard

receipt to Richard Lucas of 8/29, sum $39.03; a Sook of matches

from Shopwell; a corh; a Jarrett wage statement for check #223965

of August 9, 1975; a receipt of the Chauffeurs warchousemen and

Helpers of America, May 14, 1975 for the sum of $12; another card

of tattooing with the word Richard and the #652-0959 written on

it: a drawing card of the Wallkill Fire Department $117, another

drawing card of the Wallkill Pire Department $123 and a Mobile

receipt of $10.50 from lL. Mirtallo; a receipt of the Chauffeurs

Warehousemen and Helpers of America for $12, July 25, 1975; :

receipt for voluntary surrender of registration of plates is:ued

8/12/75 to Richard Lucas; an envelope of the Motors Insurance

Corp. Gated July 18, 1973, Albany, New York containing a letter

of Motors Insurance Corp. dated July 19, 1973 addressed to

Richard P. Lucas; a form headed *agreerent to provide physical

@anage insurance” dated July 19,1973: New York State Insurance

identification card to Richard P. Lucas effective date March 12,

d

1974 to March 12, 1975; business reply mail postcard to the New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation recarding a

nee report; a registration to Richard P, Lucas for a 1973

Chevrolet pickup expiring April 30, 1974; odometer mileage

statement on a Chevrolet dated July 19, 1973 attached to a car

invoice, #9813A of Barge Chevrolet, Inc. dated July 19, 1973; a

letter from the Depatment of Motor Vehicles addressed to Richard

P. Lucas dated May 7, 1973; certificate of life insurance

omar issued to Richard P. Lucas of the Credit Life Insurance

'Co., $A9576 effective July 19, 1973 and attached to that a

certificate of accident and health insurance of the Credit Life

Insurance Co. of July 19,1973 bearing the €A9S76 also, a pamphlet

for the official New York State Bicentennial 'fedal; retail

installment contract between Lucas and Barge Chevrolet, Inc. of

July 19, 1973; an envelope pamphlet of the New York State Departme

of Motor Vehicles with the heading “suppose your license were

taken away"; a brochure, 1973 Chevrolet , light duty truck emission

control systems; a warranty, 1973 Chevrolet truck, dated July 19,

1973; also contained in that envelope I am presently describing is

another envelope of the Motors Insurance Corp. of August 1, 1973 in

which there is a notice heaced “important, your C.I.M. policy is

enclosed"; a Motors Co. physical damage policy, family automobile

form; an envelope addressed to the tNotors Insurance Corp.:;

identification card, back headed "what to do in case of accident”);

Motors Insurance Corp. amendment, termination provision for New

York; a statement for the policy covering period July 19, 1973 to

uly 19, 1974; an address book with invitations, wood grain cover,

ctually, it's not stamped on the front cover, A to A, index note-

ook, it containe acdresses; a card of the Crawford & Co., writing

n the back including grandma; a corner of an envelope with thu

pumber 561-6177; a room assignment card of the Exist 31 Motel of

August 29; a card of the Walden Insuring Agency with writing on th

back, 564-1660; 24 hour teller receipt of the FPrpire National Bank

of August 14, 1975, #155012 in the amount of $244.85;*a piece of

84

paper headed with the name Wayne on it; 24 hour teller receipt of

the Empire National Bank of August 21, 1975, #155445 in the

amount of $188.61; a card of Daryl Porn, Mgr., Texaco, writing on

the back headed "Evelyn"; adposit receipt of the !rpire National

Bank of August 3, 1975, -- no, that is September 4, 1975 in the

sum of $200; a Bank Americard receipt of August 30, 1975 in the

sum of $29.82, Blue Ridge “Motel; Sun Oil Co., receipt August 31,

1975 sum of $11.75; a sheet of note paper headed "Joe Short.";

an envelope, part of the envelope dated July 18, cr June 18, 1975

It's not clear, it is addressed to Cheryl Crone with writing on t

inside of the envelope; a card of Burtling Realty, Inc. with

writing on it. Writing oa the back headed, "mom"; a stub,

Valley National Bank, Walden, New York of July 8, 1975 in the

amount of $49.70; a receipt of Marie Boat, $4.00, September 6,

1975, $3305; a Mobile travel map of Colorado and ‘ivyoning: a

Texaco map of New York; a Sunoco map of New York; a Texaco map

of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia; a Texaco map

of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, and an unused self-postal

envelove with a U.S. postage, Boston, 19 cents; an envelone of th

Travelers dated Septemer 18, 1975 including therein a card

addressed, “Dear Policyholder."* a card in a red and white

envelope with a Sears and Roebuck Co. dated August 18, 1975

containing therein a staterent of of August 35, 1975 total due of

$15.75; also containing a Sears advertisement. for Charlie's

perfume; business reply mail card to Allstate Insurance Co. and

the business reply envelope to Sears, Roebuck & Co.; an enve)ope

of P.O. Box #999, West Port, Connecticut stamped August 21, 1/75

containing therein to the Danbury Mint, Medallic History of

America, two coins in a card, an envelope acdressed to the

Danbury Mint and billing statement for $31 Gated Aucust 22, 14575;

an unopened Bic Click Blue refill; a black Write Brchers medium

point pen with cover; a shocking pink Bic Click pen; a piece of

rubber tubing about two inches long; a red and clear plastic bic

pen; a 5 cant picce, Buffalo, and another paper napxin;

ne

Exhibit @ Description of Items Described at R/A nage

19 Papers secured fron

sun visor of car

consisting of: 37, 81-83

White envelope, State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles

dated September 9, 1975. Inside the envelope is a certificate of

title of Richard P. Lucas, #C1869132 with a letter entitled,

"enclosed is the certificate of title of vour vehicle."; a white

envelope addressed to Casualty and Insurity, Davis and Life

Casualty, Pichard P. Lucas; white piece of paver with a yellow

caution sicn, caution sian which says, “your annual kev fea is

past due from Playboy Club.*; a bill from the Playboy Club

to Richard P. Lucas in the amount of $193.01, Gated Septemer 28,

1975; a letter addressed to the Play foy Club International, Inc.

on the face of the letter indicates “don't move an inch” with a

picture of an optical tape measure; a document from the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Parmers llome Acministration with an

option to purchase real property, with a description of the

property which should be conveyed to Barbara S. Paust, containing

a description of the property, total price of $19,000 envelope

dated October 6, 1975 containing a statement from the Playboy

Club, inside it has an advertisement for 15 dav free tril for a

tire inflator; a base mail revly from the Playboy Preferred, Inc.

an advertisement for a suede cowhide jacket; a piece of white

scrap paper with the numer 77913977 with the name Ronnie on the

back and several numbers and figuring on the side; a white

envelope from [tna Life & Casualty dated September 29, 1975,

containing a letter to Richard P. Lucas from the Ptna Life &

Casualty; report on an accicent dated 9/1975; an envelope froa

Sharon Yankow; an envelope from the Travelers, HRartford, Conn.,

dated September 10, 1975 containing policy identification

number, Travelers Insurance Co. number 0089660841911; also

containing a black-blue envelope? white and green bordered first

class mail envelope with no address containing a receipt from the

86

Beneficial Finance Co; also containing a special announcement

to cousins, uncles, grandparents, friends, containing two of

those I just read; yellow paper reciting the law according to

chapter 20, article 24 of the general business law of New York;

also containing a gray blank envelope dated -- iiartford,

September 9, 1975 from the Travelers Insurance Co. containing

New York State identification card for one Richard ®. Lucas;

also containing a copy of the New York State insurance identificat

card for Richard P. Lucas and a letter entitled "Dear Policyholde)

here are your new insurance identification curds."; an agreement

between Leland Sisson with Richard P. Lucas dated July 26, 1971,

Gerald N. Jakobowitz, Counselor at Law, Walden; envelope dated

September 11, 1975 from the General Motors Acceptance Corp.

containing a thank you for your last payment to Richard P. Lucas

also containing a retail installment contract, by your nam

Richard P. Lucas, describing a new 1973 9 cylincer Chevy crew

cab for a 1972 Dodge sports van; letter dated Septemer 11, 1975

to Richard P. Lucas from Charles Roskoski with a letter from

Charles Poskoski to Richard P. Lucas dated Septerber 10, 1975;

white piece of paper via Cooper-Jarrett with half of 9/20/75

gross 14029.23, WH, 2,174.60; ST 791.49 via, $824.35 $828.68 was

the P.I.C.A.; one driver's daily log beok starting with 9/1/75

going to the date 10/1/75; one leather buckle type log book

cover containing a travel map, North East, including New York,

New England ava; travel aid interstate map and directory cover;

Sunoco New York map; an envelope of the C.J. Shuttle Service

containing a color picture of a man; two pages of a poem headed

“These men with broken hearts"; four Cooper-Jarrett road driver's

@aily round trip pay sheets, one for October 10 and one for

October 9, and one for October 8 and one for October 4; sixteen

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority charge trip authorizations;

six New York State Thruway charge trip authorizations; six

New York S'.ate Thruway charge trip authorizations; and a photo-

static article headed “To our leway"; and a pocket of a leather

rio

case is a blue piece of paper postage will be paid and a 59 cent

piece, and a Franklin piece; also in the container is a shocking

yoink and red ballpoint red pen; and a log book of October 2, 1975,

to October 10, 1975, Cooper-Jarrett; piece of green paper foil and

miscellaneous pieces of paper foil wrappers and foil; an old

raisen and a piece of stone; HNoliday Inn matchbook, a matchbook

folded up in a xXool pack; copy of Deliverance by Jazes Dicky; an

unidentifiable piece of something, paper, a letter of the State of

Connecticut, Surrogate Court, third circuit of July 3, 1974; letter|-

of the New York State Executive Departrent of Youth of October 6,

1975 to Carl Lucas; a Ford passenger invoice for serial #332128;

an envelope from the New York State Fxecutive Department of Youth,

October 6, 1975 addressed to “Mr. Carl Lucas; a blank form headed

"your child is allowed to make one call.”} a pamphlet of tho

Division of Youth, Goshen Center, medical card, "I hereby give my

permission, etc" clipping from newspaper, Monticello entries on the

back, a picture of Jim Migli; seven wage payment envelopes of the

First National Bank of Nighland; a toothpick in a paper container;

seventee™ deposit slips on the First National Bank of Highland, Ne

Paltz, New York; a remorial for a friend and relatives for Lloyd

D. Graham, Sr.; a form of the Wright Employment Agency with the

name Mark Green written on it; a paper napkin with red lines and

zags written all over it; anc some handwriting on it; envelope of

the Orange County Department of Social Services addressed to

Richard Graham, September 22, 1975, containing therein a brochure

of public assistance programs and a letter of Septeser 13, 1975,

decision form, 0.C.P.A. 132; a small piece of note paper writing o

one side headed “Scott's Corners"; a piece of note paper with

writing on it one side headed "Al Serv", a tape from an adding

machine; 252717A, tape $20.30 on one side and headed telephone

Comp.; a picture badge showing Santa Claus, a woman and a child;

six postcard of the Holiday Inn, Dayton Beach, Florida; a pink

lady's wallet containing a picture of a young man headed, written

on the back to Iris, in the beginning; a picture of the Defendant,

88

Graham from a penny arcade machine, writte. on the back, husband

and Richard, first year; a social security card number for Iris

K. Graham and employment identification card of the Public

Employment Service for Iris Graham, only cate on it February 3,

1973: a student identification card, Newburgh Free Acacemy to

Iris Gineis embedded in plastic; a picture of a man and a dog;

identification card of Iris Graham, 63 Piecrpoint Avenue, Newburgh

the passenger registration to Iris K. Graham, expiring Decerer

31, 1972; a pictures of a little girl, postace size, another

picture of another girl, torn, black and white picture, a picture

of a young lady and what appears to be a money.

back, Iris and Che Che, 1968; two postage size victures -- four

postaga size pictures of young children in color; a picture of

Christ in a plastic container; a billfold, another picture of

Christ; a picture of brother at graduation; picture of a baby and

a young girl Mary Molinski; picture of a young lacy to Iris, words

cannet describe; picture of a young man headed on the back partial

cut up to Iris, “best of luck"! picture of Defendant Graham taken

in a penny arcade machine. That's it. A Zerox list of numbers

heaeed Lake Street, Fxtra, #5342384 and with some handwritten

items on it; a receipt of Scott's Corners Service, September 25,

1975, $5523 another deposit slip of the Tirst National Bank of

Nichland, New Bitz, New York, blank; a receint of the Holiday Inn

of Daytona Beach, 260941 and a blve and white Bic pen, Mid-

Valley Oil Co. written on the First National Bank of Pighland

receipt:

Exhibit ¢ Description of Itens Described at R/A page

13 Miscellaneous booxs,

papers aad otheritems

from rear left floor of

car consisting of: 38, 38

book, Perdinand by Monroe Muneo Lief; a Storytown coloring book;

copy of Oui magazine for November, 1975; a copy of Playboy

magazine for November, 1975; a Ginn basic reading, Pun with

Tom and Better of Peborah Kilb; a blue sock and a child's

89

school paper, very light writing, and I see the words “the best

of all® on it;

Exhibit ¢ Description of Itens Described at R/A pagel

| 14 Mirror removed from gun

H} visor of car with

fingerprint 38, 83

from front bottom of

car and scrapings of

dirt from under car 38, 88

| 15 Scraping of dry oil

it

'

!

16 Miscellaneous papers,

matchbooks and watch

consisting of: 39, 88-39

matchbooks, one thousand personalized address labels; Winston, all

names of matchbooks; Shurfine, Veretti House, Gerrys Corner Inn?

| another Shurfine; Costa beverage, another Costa beverage, four

|

Bic pens, name of a matchbock cover, Foodtown, the Pinast Food

Markets; another Shurfine, another Costa beverage, "tacke Food and

Vending Services; another personalized note stationery: Cocoa

Cola and Writewell Co; a Mickey Mouse watch; eichteen rectangular

| paper plates, empty; a Times Nerald-Record of May 24, 1974; a bag

| headed Stationery, Noliday Inn, containing two envelopes blank and

threepieces of blank Holiday Inn stationery; two personalized bath

mats and one in paper and one in cardbeard; another bag

containing lioliday Inn stationery; a baq also saying Holiday Inn

stationery with two evelopes, three pieces of paper; a Taggart

| Driving School matchbooks and a Winston Cigarett matchbook ;

Exhibit @ Description of Itens Described at R/A page

17 white rope 39

18 Book of matches from

Holiday Inn, Ramsey 39

19 Ona expended round of

12 gauge shotgun

ammunition 39

20 Car key, trunk lid, and

entire car 40, 195-1965

RO EE a

a a i a A ia i

‘ ;

| ;

|

1} 90

|

i}

I}

i}

}

|| 21 License plates of the car 40

22 Rifle secured from trunk 41

| 23 Several rounds of shotgun

H shells from trunk 42

if

i

i

}

|

I

i

|

|

|

i

}

|

'

.

4

‘

‘

¢

‘

,

‘

‘

‘

’

‘

,

al

i *¢

}

rir

lil

a

‘

+)

‘ ;

‘

‘

)

‘

i

‘

er

o

ah

" /*

”

a+

, ¢

we

¥

if

er

‘ ’ ‘7

| ? t

rm o¢ or

‘

er

nm

, er

sa

ey, +>

rift

‘

Or

’

a

t

‘ LY 4

‘ ’ or

‘ thy

,¢

y } we

; *

@eAY PP

vy. oe. are

¢ ‘ f

ear ney

‘ rive

or nenae — Te ae

= —

80-6297

RECEIVED

MAR 1 9 19H)

OFFICE OF THE Citmx

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

i ——_~

21

ys ‘

—v

.

TY rT by

RECEIVED

nre ‘ er rf of ‘ ‘ ted State

tahe sy , )

) , SUPREME COURT, US

ot ‘ ;

’ ‘

|

$ , ira 4 > 7 ‘ ‘ rn, ‘ ‘

T i hy Me? *» ner t he » > 4 ‘ ‘ + ‘ 4 ‘ ‘

ao, + ’ ; a. oe i ¥ , » 7 > : hog ‘

r\Y na € er ; ‘ ‘ ¥ ' ‘ P ; thore® , ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘

’ ° ‘

bus 1S¢ ‘ . tore T } P ‘ nav > ‘

ry eeding y e-. 7 4 P y ‘ +> roaé , + ‘ Yr > ,

‘ 4 ? ‘ + ve iv ge

forther ear that the re ’ P ' } ace +

hy " ‘ ; ’ ind +, ‘ . hel ve ‘ mot + +r ‘

¥ he ( et of rr ‘ i¢ nerf he WY + ure true

‘ve Are ‘Ou presently emp] ‘aA?

10, 1 wat ] «* ‘ ’ redin A mst, 197° sn the

ar int of mer weace i? hat + eal wae nNeY

” nth.

he Have vou received within the nast twelve mont}

anv income from a hustness, nrofession or ther

form of self-emnlovment, or 1n the form of rent

navments, interest, dividents, or other sources?

No.

°

3. Do vou own anv cash or checkina or savings account?

4. Do vou own anv real estate, stoc ,» honds notes,

automobiles, or other valuable nronerty (excludina

yrdinarv household furnishings and clo-hina)?

.

No.

° List the nersons who are lenendent ut Tv) 1 for

sur rt and state vour relationshin t those nersons,.

.

‘ re .

l¢ ‘ ¢ mr eed a , r pnerson wa ranted ane nee)

: ed tf 4 ¢ thy¢ +» ») rt, the 1? , ; rt,

sriet 7 + he Annellate rt, the Nrire late ! € eh, reme

-— € hs tate ‘ ws =! hird wu oF ‘ nt.

* oy ‘ ’ +> i¢ ‘ P ‘ > % one ’ " JO? + iT

‘ ; ' , hy e¢ ’ + rect ‘ ; ’ ‘ ‘ f ,

worn + bef r<¢ ‘ hs «

!

a ; ‘ s ,oun?

j ‘ ia of March, 1981.

' ‘ a L ) j

» : ‘

Notarv Publ

Cr STI a4

AVTATS Pur 4 | t, ‘

QUAD IF 0 *S fa

84694512) f

OW MISSION TEPLRES we 5 15 \