Jonathan Young pictured in Chautauqua County Court in Mayville in December 2018. P-J photo by Jordan Patterson

MAYVILLE — Chautauqua County Court Judge David Foley has ruled evidence gathered by Pennsylvania State Police is inadmissible against Jonathan Young in his New York trial.

Young faces a 25-count indictment in Chautauqua County Court that includes 13 felony arson charges. Young is accused of setting more than a dozen fires in Jamestown and Falconer between March 2-25, 2017. He was indicted by a Chautauqua County grand jury on two counts of second-degree arson, 11 counts of third-degree arson, one count of fifth-degree arson and 11 counts of second-degree criminal mischief. The most serious charge, second-degree arson, carries a sentence of up to 25 years in prison.

At issue was evidence discussed late last year in a Huntley hearing, a pretrial hearing in New York state that is requested to review the way police obtained statements from someone accused of a crime. During hearing, Foley heard from five witnesses how Jamestown and Pennsylvania state police officers obtained information from Young during the course of their investigation. Seven items were entered into evidence.

Foley ruled that any evidence gathered by Jamestown police in New York state during their investigation will be allowed into court when Young’s trial begins because Young was not threatened in any way, was not promised anything in return for his statement, never requested to stop the interview and never requested an attorney.

The Pennsylvania statements are a more complex legal issue. Trooper Christopher Balcik, a Pennsylvania state trooper, spoke with Jamestown Police Det. Rex Goot and Capt. Robert Samuelson as Pennsylvania state troopers tried to confirm Young’s identity after the New York resident had given Pennsylvania officers a false name. At the same time the confirmation of identity was being cleared up, District Court Judge William O’Donnell assigned Young a public defender to represent Young during the arraignment. A public defender application was completed March 29.

Jamestown police did not interview Young during their trip to the Butler County Prison. Samuelson testified that he asked if Young had been assigned an attorney, though Balcik said he couldn’t recall being asked. Instead, Balcik arranged for Goot and Samuelson to view Balcik’s interrogation of Young, though the Jamestown officers did bring a board that contained the addresses of the 12 fires they believed Young was responsible for setting. Balcik and another Pennsylvania state trooper advised Young of his Miranda rights and he agreed to speak with the troopers, though Palumbi, Young’s assigned attorney, was not in the room. Foley wrote that no promises were made to Young for his statement, nor was he threatened during the two-hour interview. Young did not indicate a wish to remain silent and did not request an attorney. At one point in the interview, the troopers took a break and spoke with Samuelson and Goot, who were watching the interview via monitor. Foley wrote that Samuelson and Goot asked the troopers to ask about a specific Jamestown fire to which Young denied any involvement.

“Although the testimony differed slightly between Detective Goot and Captain Samuelson, it is evident that if the Pennsylvania State Police did not question the defendant about the unrelated charges the Jamestown Police would have questioned him after the Pennsylvania State Police were done, which would have been identical to what occurred in Lopez. The fact that the Pennsylvania State Police conducted the interview instead of the Jamestown Police, in this court’s opinion, is de minimis.”

The case Foley refers to is a state Court of Appeals case, People v. Lopez, held that a detective violated a man’s indelible right to counsel by questioning him on unrelated New York charges without first obtaining a written waiver from his Pennsylvania attorney.

“According to the Court of Appeals, the right to counsel in New York state is a ‘cherished and valuable protection that must be guarded with the utmost vigilance.'”

Pursuant to the Due Process Clause under the New York State Constitution the right to effective assistance of counsel and the right against self-incrimination is indelible because once it attaches no interrogation is permitted unless the right is waived in the presence of counsel. Attachment occurs when an accused is either in custody and requests an attorney or an attorney enters the case on behalf of the accused or when a criminal proceeding is commenced against an accused by the filing of an accusatory instrument. The law in New York is clear that once either of these events occur the police may not question an accused person who is in custody on anything related to the charged crime or anything unrelated to the charged crime without first obtaining a waiver from that person’s attorney.”

Foley wrote that the right to counsel is handled differently in New York than it is in Pennsylvania, which means Balcik was allowed, under Pennsylvania law, to question Young about anything unrelated to the Pennsylvania charges. Foley wrote that the Lopez decision mandates police collecting evidence for a case being prosecuted in New York state to do more to ascertain whether an attorney has been assigned to someone accused of a crime.

“To rely on Trooper Balcik’s understanding of the defendant’s representational status, in this court’s opinion, was not a reasonable inquiry,” Foley wrote.

Jury selection in Young’s trial was to begin Tuesday in Chautauqua County Court. That is now on hold. Patrick Swanson, Chautauqua County district attorney, is going to ask for a ruling by the Fourth Department Appellate Division regarding Foley’s ruling. There is no timetable yet for that appeal to be heard.

“We have a differing view of the law,” Swanson told The Post-Journal. “Our position is that the court’s interpretation and application of the law was flawed. We will ask the Appellate Division to review.”