The prerequisites listed in section 80(a) of the Penal Law speak of "... The guilt from which he is acquitted..." or "... An indictment that was dismissed under section 94(b) of the Criminal Procedure Law [Consolidated Version], 5742-1982...". In other words, an acquittal or dismissal of an indictment due to a retraction of an indictment that follows the defendant's response, as well as acquittal for other reasons – each of these, alone, is sufficient to serve as a prerequisite for the application of section 80(a) of the Penal Law.
These threshold conditions are necessary – but they are not enough. In order for entitlement to compensation to be established, the existence of one of the two grounds listed in section 80(a) above is also required: the ground for lack of a basis for the accusation in the first place and the other justifying circumstances.
They say: It cannot be said that the withdrawal of the indictment grants, as a rule, the entitlement to compensation. Only when it fulfills one of the aforementioned prerequisites may section 80(a) of the Penal Law apply, provided that there is also a cause of eligibility. Similarly, the credit for other reasons is also an alternative prerequisite for the application of section 80(a), and it too may establish eligibility only if there is a reason for entitlement. Therefore, it is not enough to withdraw from the charge, and an acquittal, even an "absolute acquittal", is not sufficient to justify, as a rule, entitlement to compensation. Retraction of the indictment – "absolute acquittal" as defined by my colleague Justice Dorner – may, as stated, serve as a prerequisite for entitlement, but even when such a condition is met, we are required to examine further, namely: whether the grounds for entitlement to compensation were met, which is, as stated, the lack of a basis for the accusation, or whether there are other circumstances that justify compensation. We will examine each of these grounds on its own merits.
- The first of them is "... There was no basis for the accusation" – meaning that from the outset-According to the evidence that the prosecution had in its possession, he moves on to filing a writ of habeas corpus-The indictment was that it was unreasonable to file the-The indictment. Once this ground has been met and added to the prerequisites of the acquittal, it may arise