Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COUNTY COURT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AFFIRMATION IN
SUPPORT OF
-against- DEFENDANTS
MOTION
ROBERT ORTT, Indictment No.
AG-1-8228
Defendant.
the courts of the State of New York, affirms under penalty of perjury:
1. I am an attorney with the law firm of OConnell and Aronowitz, attorneys for
the Defendant in this matter, and submit this Affirmation in support of the Defendants
observations, my conversations with the Defendant, a review of the case file maintained
Instrument for Filing in the Frist Degree in that, on three separate occasions, he
specifically offered or presented a periodic campaign disclosure report for the Niagara
County Republican Committee that contained false information for filing with the
knowledge or belief that it would be become, in essence, a public record. The Indictment
is attached as Exhibit A.
4. As outlined below, the New York State Attorney Generals Office denied Senator Ortt his
right to provide the Grand Jury with relevant and competent evidence concerning the
1
case under consideration and in doing so, frustrated the purpose and the integrity of the
Grand Jury. CPL 190.50(5)(b) and (c). As a consequence, the Indictment must be
dismissed.
5. On February 17, 2017, the New York State Attorney Generals Office, represented by
Assistant Attorney General Christopher Baynes, notified Senator Ortt, pursuant to CPL
190.50(5)(a) that the underlying case was going to be presented to an Albany County
Grand Jury. Thereafter, Senator Ortt retained OConnell and Aronowitz to defend him.
6. On March 3, 2017 I notified Mr. Baynes that my firm had been retained to defend Senator
Ortt and that Senator Ortt wished to avail himself of the opportunity to testify before the
Grand Jury pursuant to CPL 190.50(5). My letter to Mr. Baynes is attached as Exhibit
C.
7. On Thursday, March 23, 2017, Senator Ortt testified before the Albany County Grand
Jury. I was present in the Grand Jury Room with Senator Ortt while he testified and I
personally observed all interactions, questions, instructions and statements made by Mr.
8. Prior to giving his testimony, Senator Ortt voluntarily waived immunity pursuant to CPL
190.45. Senator Ortt informed the Grand Jury that he would answer any questions they
9. The majority of the questions posed to Senator Ortt focused largely on payments to his
wife (who previously testified before the Grand Jury). As to the actuyal basis of the
Grand Jury investigation Senator Ortt, however was never shown any forms, documents
2
or filings he was eventually accused of offering with the knowledge and intent that they
contained false information. Specifically, Senator Ortt was never shown or asked
questions about either of the three periodic campaign disclosure reports for the Niagara
10. At the conclusion of his questioning, and startled by the fact that he was asked no
questions about the forms in question, and before being excused from the Grand Jury,
11. He was not, however, afforded an opportunity to speak or even articulate to Mr. Baynes
or the Grand Jury what additional information he sought to offer. Instead, Mr. Baynes
refused to allow Senator Ortt to provide any additional information to the Grand Jury
without conducting any inquiry into the relevancy, materiality or competency of the
subject matter.
12. Senator Ortt knew that that gravamen of the case had to do with the filings of the reports
alluded to in the Indictment, but not having been asked directly about such disclosures
during the course of his testimony Senator Ortt wanted to review and address documents
13. Had he been given that opportunity, Senator Ortt would have explained that he had never
seen these reports, had never signed or reviewed them and was not responsible for their
filing. Additionally Senator Ortt would have answered any questions put to him by the
14. Inexplicably, Senator Ortt was summarily denied that opportunity and the Grand Jury was
denied relevant and competent evidence which constituted the crux of the States case.
3
15. The Indictment was handed up the same day and Senator Ortt was arraigned the
following morning.
16. CPL 190.50 plainly establishes that a Grand Jury witness testifying in his or
her own behalf must be allowed to give all relevant and competent evidence concerning
the case. Here, the prosecution intentionally prevented Senator Ortt from exercising that
right and prevented the Grand Jury from considering relevant and competent evidence.
People v. Green, 80 A.D.2d 650, 651-652 (3d Dep't 1981) (dismissing Indictment where
requests that the Court grant the relief set forth herein; together with such other and
further relief which as to the Court may seem just and proper.