White Plains CitizeNetReporter - Hockley Claiming He Was Denied a Jury Trial in His Appeal

Drivetime News Caravan, Filed 2/6/02 3 3:00 PM EST:The Glen Hockley appeal raises a new issue as a basis for appeal. Today the Hockley matter of the ongoing District 18 Machine Jam Case awaits a Court of Appeals evaluation as to whether New York's highest court will review his case. The brief states they were denied a jury trial at the Trial Court level where Judge Francis Nicolai ruled for a continued election in District 18, in addition to raising the familiar procedural matters as basis for denying a new election.

Another new wrinkle that Hockley's brief raises in his appeal cites one of John Ciampoli's former cases as evidence that the Delgado camp should have filed a new index number before filing their second step in obtaining an examination of the voting machine in District 18. (John Ciampoli is Larry Delgado's specialist in election law).

Ciampoli explained to WPCNR that the Hockley brief simply lifted part of his former case to show that the Delgado camp should have filed for a new index number. Ciampoli said this was taking a case out of context, because this case involved absentee ballots and was not as time-sensitive as the events on Election Night, 2001 in White Plains.

If you recall, results did not look right after District 18 totals came into Republican Headquarters, and the Delgado camp filed for impoundment of the voting machines suspecting an election machine had jammed on the Delgado line. Attempts to get the court to examine the machine were contested by the Hockley camp, as not being allowed under election law.

When Judge Nicolai refused to deny an examination of the machine, and ordered it, the machine was found to have a jammed Delgado counterwheel. On the basis of "having identified a wrong, the court is forced to manufacture a remedy," Judge Nicolai ordered a continuation of the election in District 18. The Hockley camp sought a stay from the Appellate Court in Brooklyn to stop this election from taking place.

The Appellate Court refused Mr. Hockley's appeal by a 3-1 decision. On Thursday of last week, January 31, Mr. Hockley appealed to the Court of Appeals. This is where the case stands today.

Ciampoli said Wednesday regarding his response brief to Court of Appeals on the Hockley matter, that "We replied at this point, and nothing else is in play."

Ciampoli also said that the jury trial denial piece to the appeal was strange, because according to the practice of law you cannot use an issue as a basis for appeal, if you did not ask for that relief at a lower court level. Mr. Ciampoli says at no time did Mr. Bradley ask for a jury trial in Judge Nicolai's court.

Two Week Wait Possible.

Asked how fast the Court of Appeals might move on deciding to take up the case, Ciampoli thought two weeks at the latest before the Court of Appeals would make the review-no review decision.

Thursday, February 7 was the date when Judge Nicolai, Administrative Judge of the New York State Supreme Court, Ninth District, had set to bring the parties back to set an election date. Unless the Court of Appeals rejects the case today, the parties will not reconvene.

Ciampoli said the Hockley brief prepared by Bradley recites his previous arguments on procedural issues. Ciampoli reviewed the events in question on Election Night: "He (Adam Bradley) managed to convince one (Court of Appeals) Judge that the case had technially concluded after the machine impoundment proceeding (requiring a new index number). But, he cannot produce anything (document) from Judge Perrone (the Judge ordering the impoundment) that says the (impoundment) case was concluded. I do not see how you can end the impoundment until you get results of the recanvas (to check for reporting errors). All he (Bradley) has is his letter to Binder about a court appearance."


Create an account		The White Plains Daily Internet Newspaper...Founded 2000 A.D....


			Designed and hosted by WestchesterInternet.com