COI'NTY COURT
STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF UISTER
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
- again s t- DECISION and ORDER
RAYMOND SNYDER,
Defendant .
Appearance s
For the People: David ,J. C1egg, Esq., District Attorney
By: Marco Caviglia, Esq., Assistant
Distlict Attolney
Fo! the Defendant : Dutchess County Public Defender
By: Bradford H. white, Esq., Conflict
Defender
Submissions Considered
1. orde! to Show Causedated April 29, 2021, and Affirmation of
Bradford H. white, Esq. dated April 29, 2O2l , and
2. Affirmation in Response of Marco Caviglia, Esq. dated May 3,
2021, with exhibits.
ROUNDS, J
The defendant has moved, Pursuant to CPL 190.80, for an
order reLeasing him from custody on his own recognizance on the
ground that no grand jury action has occurred notwithstanding
his being so confined for more thaa forty-five days on the basis
of a felony comPlaint filed in a focal criminal court. The
People oppose the motion. A hearing on the motion was conducted
by this court on the record on May 3, 2021- .
1
Backgtound
On Janualy 20, 2027, the defendant was arrested and
arraigned in Kingston Ci-ty Court on charges of Murder in the
Second Deglee and Burglary in the Eirst Degree, such crimes
alleged to have occurred on .7u1y 77, 2020, after which he was
remanded to the custody of the Ulster County Sheriff without
bail . He then waived application of the time Period prescribed
by cPL 180.80 for the holding of a pleliminary hearing until
February 9, 2027. The prel5.minary trearing vras conducted in
Kingston City Court (Ba11, J.) on February 11, 2021, on the
basis of which reasonable cause was found to believe that the
defendant committed a felony, whereupon he was ordered to be
held for the action of a grand jury and continued in the custody
of the Ulste! County Sheriff without bail.
Pulsuant to CPL 190.80, the People had until March 28,
202L, to plesent their case to a grand jury and obtain an
indictment against the defendant, but they failed to do so. As
of May 3, 2O2\, thirty-six days beyond the forty-five day
deadl,ine, the PeoPle had stilL not obtained an indictment
against the defendant.
The People' s Response
The statute governing this rratte! is CP], 190.80, which
mandates the release of a defendant under such circumstances
unless the People shotd "good cause/' why he should not be
released. The statute goes on to define "good cause" as "some
cory>eJ-7ing [emphasis supplied] fact or circumstance which
precluded grand jury action within the Plescribed per5.od or
rendered the sarte against the interest of justice. "
2
The People contend that there is good cause warranting the
defendant's continued confinement for two reasons: (1) between
February Ll , 2021, and May 3, 202L (a period of fifty days) ,
there was not sufficient time to present the case to a grand
jury because the gland jury's time was consumed by other cases
and they vrere not permitted to meet more than one day a week as
a result of scheduling restlictions imposed during the Covid-19
pandemic, and (2) the People dj.d not receive a necessary Iab
report until April 29, 2O2l .
WhiLe it is true that grand juries were not permitted to
meet as often during tha period in question as they would have
been before the pandemic, it did not prevent the People from
presenting cases to the grand jury and obtaining indictments in
twenty-seven othe! cases. Moleover, of those twenty-seven other
casas, only five involved charges of violence against peoPle,
while sixteen of then invoLved charges of driving while under
the infLuence of alcohol or drugs or driving with a revoked
1icens6. As every prosecutor knows, or should know, priority in
the plesentation of cases to a grand jury must be given to more
serious crimeg, particularly those involving violence against
others such as murders and Physical or sexual assaufts ' In
sholt, thj.s case, involving a charge of murder, shoufd have
taken priority over the sixteen non-violent cases that the
People somehow found the time to Present to a grand jury.
on .Tuly l!, 2021, the police investigating the murder took
swa.bs of what appeared to be btood flom the crime scene, but
unaccountably such evidence Ytas not submitted to the State
Po]-ice forensic lalrolatory ("1a]r") for DNA analysis until
Eebruary 23, 202L, more than seven months later. On March 26,
2021 , lihe 1ab issued a rePort setting forth the resufts of their
analysis of the evidence which concLuded that it was indeed
blood and that the DNA Profile they obtaj-ned from it matched
3
that of the defendant. The People, howeve!, claim that they did
not learn of the repolt' s issuance and contents until it was
sent to them by the police on April 29 , 202l- .
Notably, at no time either before or after the DNA swabs
rrere submitted to the Ial, did Marco Caviglia, the Chief of the
Felony Trials Bureau and assistant district attorney in charge
of the case, contact a supervisor there to ask that the analysis
be expedited despite his awareness of the critical j,mportance of
such evidence to his case against the defendant and his ability
to present it to a grand jury for indictment, and despite his
knowledge that the submissj.on of such vitaL evidence to the lab
had been delayed for more than seven months.
In short, neither excuse offered by the people rises to the
leve1 of a " coryeiling fact or circumstance which precluded
grand Sury action within the prescribed period,,, and thus they
have failed to esta.blish the "good cause" required under CPI,
190.80.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the defendant's motion is granted,. and it is
further
ORDERED that the defendant be released forthwith from the
custody of the Ulster County Sheriff on his own recognizance.
Signed this t "rl day of May, 202L, at Kingston, New Yo!k.
ENTER .
E s Judge
