Narrative Opinion Summary
In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner, convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Kings County District Attorney to prosecute police officers for perjury related to their trial and suppression hearing testimonies. The Supreme Court of Kings County, presided over by Justice Gerges, dismissed the application on February 22, 1993. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, noting that the decision to prosecute lies solely within the discretion of the District Attorney, supported by precedent cases such as Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand and others. The judgment was affirmed without costs or disbursements, with Justices Miller, O’Brien, Joy, and Krausman concurring.
Legal Issues Addressed
Mandamus Relief for Prosecutorial Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case clarifies that mandamus cannot compel a district attorney to prosecute, as such decisions are discretionary.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, noting that the decision to prosecute lies solely within the discretion of the District Attorney.
Precedent in Prosecutorial Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is supported by previous rulings that establish the discretionary power of prosecutors in deciding whether to pursue charges.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, noting that the decision to prosecute lies solely within the discretion of the District Attorney, supported by precedent cases such as Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand and others.
Prosecutorial Discretion's Immunity from Judicial Compulsionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The judiciary respects prosecutorial discretion by affirming the dismissal of a mandamus application intended to compel prosecution.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of Kings County, presided over by Justice Gerges, dismissed the application on February 22, 1993.