More time given to the Burke councilman challenging a grand-jury probe

Local News

Discussion

PLEASE NOTE: There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

ALSO NOTE: Derisive name-calling of an individual or group will result in the entire comment being deleted. This includes the terms "stupid" and "idiot" and similar references.

Welcome to our new online comments feature. Before you can join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address.

Once you do, your comments will post after they have been reviewed by a moderator.

We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified, at the newspaper’s discretion, for a number of reasons. Here are some typical practices to avoid in trying to get your comment printed:

There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

Don’t state as a fact something that is unsubstantiated or that our editors wouldn't know to be true.

Don’t presume someone’s guilt in a case when it hasn't been established by a court.

Don’t assail or impugn an identifiable individual or group. If you have that kind of criticism, sign your name and submit it as a Letter to the Editor. (There is some leeway on this in connection with public officials, but it is not unconditional.)

Don’t use profanity. This includes the term “tea bagger.”

Don’t be incendiary or tasteless. Those qualities are subjective, of course, and our editors will be the arbiters.

Do not identify yourself in the main content area of the article content form. Only by enforcing this rule can the moderators prevent unscrupulous commenters from falsely identifying themselves as someone they are not.

Don't type in all caps. It is considered the Internet equivalent of shouting.

In sports articles, do not criticize officiating.

Remember, moderators are not allowed to edit any article comments. If an article comment fails any of the above criteria, the entire comment will be deleted.

We monitor comments Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. Approval of comments outside these times may be delayed.

comments powered by Disqus

April 9, 2008

Grand jury wants data related to windfarm role

By DENISE A. RAYMO The Press Republican Wed Apr 09, 2008, 12:00 AM EDT

MALONE -- A Burke Town Council member has 10 days to give legal reasons why turning over wind-farm-project documents to a grand jury could violate his constitutional rights.

Acting Franklin County and St. Lawrence County Supreme Court Judge David Demerest told David Vincent on Tuesday he has until April 18 to explain in more detail, with supporting case law, why he should be excluded from turning certain information over to a grand-jury investigation.

But Demerest also instructed Vincent to have the paperwork in question ready for him to read in private if the final ruling does not go in Vincent's favor.

WIND DOCUMENTS

Vincent, through attorney Brian Barrett of Lake Placid, is challenging a grand-jury subpoena from District Attorney Derek Champagne asking for "any and all" documents that could personally connect him to the Noble Chateaugay Windpark, Noble Energy, Jericho Rise Windpark and Burke Wind Power.

The grand jury wants to see all correspondence, contracts, receipts, leases, purchase agreements, options or communications from 2006, 2007 and 2008 that the councilman may have had with any representatives of the wind-farm projects being proposed in the towns of Chateaugay, Burke and Bellmont.

RIGHTS

But Barrett argues that his client's right to privacy, his right to avoid self-incrimination and his right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure would be violated if he were to turn over the requested material.

He characterized the DA's subpoena as "a fishing expedition" and said Champagne is trying to get around obtaining a proper search warrant by issuing a subpoena instead.

Barrett said the grand-jury process is "cloaked in secrecy" and that the DA "has a wide latitude to tell the grand jury what he wants."

That could mean some of the paperwork the DA seeks might disclose personal information about his client that has nothing to do with the investigation, Barrett said.

RESISTS LIMITS

Chief Assistant District Attorney John Delehanty, who represents Champagne in the action, argued a grand jury has specific duties and functions and therefore its power is to be far-reaching and thorough in determining whether to seek a criminal indictment against someone or not.

He said the request for a subpoena "is presumptively appropriate" and should never be scrutinized or limited.

Delehanty said it is up to grand jury to decide if requested material has relevance it its investigation, not Vincent, and that it is his duty to respond to the order.

He said the subpoena challenge is frivolous, suggesting that Vincent be held in contempt of the order.

But Demerest said Vincent is not refusing to comply with request; he is exercising his right to refute the subpoena.

Therefore, there is no basis for contempt charges, he said.

Vincent has until April 18 to give the judge his legal reasons for not wanting to turn over documents, and Delehanty has until April 25 to respond.

The judge expects to make a decision before May 1, when the next group of grand jurors is impaneled.

draymo@pressrepublican.com