2020-01375. The People, etc., plf, v. Ishmel Griggs, def. (Ind. No. 1876/19) — Application by the defendant pursuant to CPL 245.70(6) to review a ruling of an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, as set forth in a protective order of that court dated February 7, 2020, and, upon review, to modify or vacate the ruling. Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon oral argument, it is ORDERED that the application is denied; and it is further, ORDERED that the documents submitted under seal by the People in connection with this application pursuant to CPL 245.70(6) are deemed to be filed under seal, and shall continue to be sealed. On November 27, 2019, the defendant was indicted for the crimes of attempted murder in the second degree (count 1), assault in the first degree (count 2), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (counts 3 and 4), and criminal use of firearm in the first degree (count 5). On February 7, 2020, a sealed protective order hearing pursuant to CPL 245.70(1) was held before the Supreme Court at the request of the People to deny or delay automatic disclosure of certain materials relating to names, contact information and other identifying material of witnesses identified in the application as Witnesses 1 through 90. Initially, the Supreme Court heard from the People as to the basis for their application. The courtroom was sealed and defense counsel was not permitted to participate until after the Supreme Court heard the People’s arguments and made its ruling. Thereafter, defense counsel was permitted in the courtroom at which time she was advised of the court’s determination. Defense counsel was also permitted to make arguments on behalf of the defendant with regard to several aspects of the ruling. Thereafter, the defendant was permitted in the courtroom to be advised as to the court’s ruling. A written copy of the protective order granted by the court was handed down on the date of the hearing. The protective order provides that, “the automatic discovery/inspection of material contained in any document or source subject to automatic discovery which tends to reveal the identity of the above listed witnesses and/or information related to said witnesses as set forth above and in the People’s ex parte application be denied/delayed/restricted from discovery at this time as requested by the People above until further court order.” The ex parte request by the People as related to Witnesses 1 through 4 sought a ruling to fully restrict “disclosure of the names, contact information and other identifying material of these witnesses.” The ex parte request by the People as to related to Witnesses 5 through 90 sought a ruling to restrict “the disclosure of names, contact information and other identifying material of these individuals to defense counsel only until further order of the Court.”
