People v. Reid

THOMAS F. LIOTTI, J. The defendant has appeared pro se. He is charged with three vehicle and traffic violations, to wit: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 319 (3), failure to produce insurance; § 507 (2), failure to produce a license; and § 1172 (a), failure to stop for a stop sign. These charges were initiated by simplified traffic informations. make the request, the better practice would be to give supporting depositions to all defendants together with a brief legal explanation of a supporting deposition. Eventually, in order to insure fairness in criminal justice proceedings, we will get to that point together with the recording of alleged confessions on audio or video. (See also, Hoffman, Police Tactics Chipping Away at Suspects' Rights, NY Times, Mar. 29, 1998, at 1, 40; Hoffman, Police Refine Methods So Potent Even The Innocent Have Confessed, NY Times, Mar. 30, 1998, at 1, B4.) The form currently being used to request the aforementioned supporting depositions allows for gratuitous comments from the accused. There are no Miranda rights given and the ample spacing on the form allows for comments by the accused that may be used against him at a later time. Perhaps more problematical is the following inquiry which is then followed by a signature line and date. Naturally, the writing and form may also provide a handwriting exemplar for law enforcement without advising the defendant of any potential adverse consequences in filling out the form or signing his name to it. "If you have pled NOT Guilty, you will be notified by mail of a court conference. Please give a brief explanation as to why you are pleading NOT Guilty." This form language is then followed by eight lines where the defendant may respond. The form is 8 ½ inches by 11 inches. The defendant wrote: "These tickets was issued to the wrong person. I don't own no BMW, I wasn't issued these tickets on Jericho Trnpke." There is nothing in the law that requires a defendant to provide a "brief explanation as to why [he or she] is pleading NOT Guilty." The People have the burden of proof, not the defendant. The defendant need not inform the court or the prosecution of his/her defense theory. Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) and Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]) both require that defendants be apprised of their privilege against self-incrimination before making statements to law enforcement or a court. Constitutional rights may only be waived with caution and voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Accordingly, the court determines that this form is unlawful and deprives defendants of their constitutional rights. It may not be used, and any statements derived from it are hereby suppressed and stricken.