Mr. Murray filed this memo
after a suppression hearing on the legality of a search conducted by the
police on his client's van. The police attempted to justify the
search as an administrative "inventory" search conducted only because they
intended to impound the van as potential evidence in the case. As
the facts came out at the hearing, however, it became clear that the
police did not follow the rules with respect to these inventory searches.
Therefore, Mr. Murray prepared
and filed this memo to demonstrate that the so-called "inventory" search
was really just a means to rummage through a car when it would have been
appropriate to obtain a warrant. In most circumstances, warrants are
not required to search vehicles as a result of a variety of exceptions to
the Constitutional warrant requirement carved out by the Courts over the
years. One of those exceptions is the "inventory search" exception
pursuant to which the police are permitted to inventory the contents of a
car they intend to impound. Each of the exceptions, including the
inventory search exception, carries with it certain rules designed to
prevent abuse by police in the field. It was Mr. Murray's argument
in this memo that those rules were violated.
All the names, dates, judge's
name, police officers' names, and any other identifying information have
been changed to protect client confidentiality. For the purposes of
this altered memo, Richard Jones is the defendant's name and the county
name has been intentionally excluded.
Mr. Murray was initially involved in a
recent case that received quite a bit of media attention around the
country and even the world. The District Attorney's Office charged
Mr. Murray's client and her husband with Assault in the First Degree and Reckless Endangerment in the
First Degree for failing to properly feed their infant daughter.
Both crimes require that the Government prove a "depraved indifference to
human life" and that the person victimized be placed at "grave risk of
death". Classic examples of depraved indifference to human life include firing a gun randomly into a
crowd of people or driving an automobile into a crowd of people.
Mr. Murray's client and her husband
believed they were Vegans and were highly suspicious of traditional
medicine. While their views were certainly eccentric, the evidence
was crystal clear that they loved their child and meant no harm to the
child. The child, however, was diagnosed with a number of severe
issues related to malnutrition as a result of the unorthodox diet.
It was Mr. Murray's belief that the media attention
drove the District Attorney's decision to prosecute the case as severely
as they did. Mr. Murray believed that the indictment for Assault in the
First Degree and Reckless
Endangerment in the First Degree was illegal and did not apply to the
tragic factual situation presented. After indictment, Mr. Murray
challenged the legality of the charge against his client and filed the
memo reproduced here.
The District Attorney's Office dismissed the indictment rather than wait for the judge to decide it.
The District Attorney's Office then presented the case again to a
different Grand Jury, and the case was sent to a different judge who found the indictment
legal.
Mr. Murray and his client later had
critical differences over the nature of the defenses to be raised at
trial. Mr. Murray and his client parted ways and her case was tried
by another attorney. The client was convicted and sentenced to a
substantial state prison term.
The memo reproduced on this site is in PDF
format requiring Adobe Acrobat Reader. The client's name and other
identifying information about the case have all been changed to protect
client confidentiality.
UPDATE: The New York
State Court of Appeals, in 2006, reversed the conviction,
finding that indeed, as Mr. Murray had maintained from the
beginning, the facts did not support a finding of "depraved
indifference to human life."
