People ex rel. Kaufmann ex rel. Marongiu v. Brann, 451514-2020
| Decision Date | 05 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 451514-2020 |
| Citation | 69 Misc.3d 506,129 N.Y.S.3d 707 |
| Parties | PEOPLE EX REL. KAUFMANN ON BEHALF OF MARONGIU, Petitioner, v. BRANN, Respondent. People ex rel. Kaufmann On Behalf of Roberts, Petitioner, v. Brann, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
New York County District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. (Courtney Razner, of counsel with respect to Defendant Victor Marongiu; Danielle Coffey, of counsel with respect to Defendant Jason Roberts).
New York County Defender Services (Sarah Kaufmann, of counsel, to Defendants Victor Marongiu and Jason Roberts) for the Petitioners/Defendants).
The Defendants in these two cases have both filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus based on their continued detention in Rikers Island without a grand jury indictment or preliminary hearing. Although these two cases have not been consolidated, they raise the same legal issues, are represented by the same defense attorney and are both being prosecuted by the New York County District Attorney's office. This Court has thus ruled on these two writs in this one Decision and Order.
Mr. Marongiu has been detained at Rikers Island since March 25, 2020, a period of more than four months, without any determination based on evidence presented either to a grand jury or to a judge at a preliminary hearing that there is reasonable cause to believe he committed a crime. Mr. Roberts has been detained under the same conditions since May 6th. In this Court's view, the law, the Governor's Executive Orders and the due-process principles inherent in our Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law forbid these detentions.
The Second Department, however, has recently issued two decisions which allow prosecutors to delay the conduct of preliminary hearings in the absence of grand juries for good cause for equivalent periods. This Court respectfully disagrees with these rulings and believes a series of Executive Orders issued by the Governor prohibit good cause extensions for such extended periods. However, this Court is bound to follow and has followed those decisions here. This Court also disagrees with the discretionary determinations made by the Criminal Court in both of these cases that there is good cause to delay the conduct of preliminary hearings. But, in these habeas corpus petitions, the question is not whether this Court would have reached a different conclusion than the Criminal Court. The question is whether the Criminal Court acted outside the bounds of the law in making its rulings. The Court here holds the Criminal Court did not violate the law in making its discretionary good cause determinations. For those reasons, both petitions are denied.
Mr. Marongiu is alleged to have "forcibly and repeatedly sexually assaulted and obstructed the breathing of his grandmother's home health aide".1 The People allege that the assault occurred over a period of 1-2 hours and was a "violent, prolonged, and degrading sexual assault".2 The Defendant was arraigned on March 25, 2020. He was charged in a felony complaint with Rape in the First Degree, Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree and Criminal Obstruction of Breathing and Blood Circulation. Bail was set in the amount of $50,000 cash, $100,000 Insurance Company Bail Bond, $100,000 Partially Secured Surety Bond or $75,000 by credit card.
On May 20, Criminal Court Judge Kevin McGrath granted the People's application to allow the defendant's continued detention without an indictment or preliminary hearing until June 6. On May 29, 2020, the People asked for an indefinite extension of the Defendant's detention without either an indictment or a preliminary hearing for "good cause". As discussed in more detail infra , the People argued that since the victim would not be able to testify virtually from home, she would have to travel to the district attorney's office to provide virtual testimony, jeopardizing her safety and the safety of the vulnerable home health care patients she cared for. The People also argued that it would be inequitable to require the victim to be forced to relive the trauma of the sexual assault by testifying at a preliminary hearing.
On June 3, 2020, Judge McGrath extended his order denying the Defendant's release for an additional 30 days:
This Court's previous order, issued on May 20, 2020, denying the defendant's release, shall be extended for 30 days from the date of this order. This Court finds that the People have shown good cause as to why this Court's prior order should be extended. In this case, the reasons provided by the People in their application as to why they are unable to conduct a preliminary hearing at this time, as well as the inability to empanel a grand jury due to COVID-19 constitute such good cause.
On July 2, 2020, Judge McGrath issued an identical order (except for the dates) extending the previous order until August 2. It is this Order which then became the subject of the instant petition. On July 31, Judge McGrath issued an identical order (except for the dates) extending the previous order until August 21. This will extend the Defendant's authorized confinement without the requirement for an indictment or preliminary hearing to almost five months.
Jason Roberts is alleged to have sexually assaulted a woman after following her into her apartment building on May 1, 2020. The complainant in this case is a registered nurse who works in a hospital upstate but was in New York City at the time of the assault working at a hospital assisting COVID patients. Upon following the complainant into the building, the Defendant grabbed her, pulled down her leggings and underwear and struck her with a closed fist. The perpetrator also took the Defendant' Iphone.
On May 4, he was charged in a felony complaint with Burglary in the First Degree as a Sexually Motivated Felony, Attempted Rape in the First Degree, Robbery in the Second Degree and Sexual Abuse in the First Degree. On May 6, a securing order of $200,000 cash, $400,000 insurance company bail bond, $400,000 partially secured surety bond or $400,000 credit card payment was set and Mr. Roberts remains incarcerated on that securing order.
On May 26, Judge McGrath found good cause to deny the Defendant's release. In a brief decision, he wrote: On May 29, the People submitted an affirmation in support of their request for a further extension and the Court granted a further 30 day extension on June 3, using the identical form of order issued in the Marongiu case. On July 2, the Court issued the identical form of order, extending the Defendant's detention until August 2. It is this Order which then became the subject of the instant petition. On July 31, the Court issued the identical form of order extending the defendant's detention until August 21. This will extend the Defendant's authorized confinement without an indictment or preliminary hearing to three months and three weeks.
In this Court's view, it is clear that a Governor's Executive Order issued on May 7th and extended since then requires that, in the absence of grand juries, any defendant in custody on that date must be afforded a preliminary hearing within 45 days or released. Since that did not happen in these cases, the continued detention of both Mr. Marongiu and Mr. Roberts became unlawful on June 21 (45 days following the Executive Order).
The provisions of CPL 180.80 and 190.80 have been modified by a series of Governor's Executive Orders (hereinafter "EOs"). The most relevant to consider here are EO 202.28, issued on May 7th 2020 (hereinafter the "May 7th EO") and the most recent EO 202.48, issued on July 6, 2020, (hereinafter the "July 6th EO").
The May 7th EO continued the suspension of various laws made by earlier EOs and contained two specific provisions relevant to CPL 180.80 and 190.80. The CPL 180.80 language continues the suspension of CPL 180.80 under the following terms:
Section 180.80 of the Criminal Procedure Law, to the extent that a court must satisfy itself that good cause has been shown within one hundred and forty-four hours from May 8, 2020 that a defendant should continue to be held on a felony complaint due to the inability to empanel a grand jury due to COVID-19, which may constitute such good cause pursuant to subdivision three of such section;
This provision says that so long as grand juries cannot be empaneled (the situation today in New York County) a defendant may continue to be held on a felony complaint. No requirement for a preliminary hearing is imposed. Indeed, it can be argued that this provision is unnecessary, since it illustrates a circumstance (the COVID pandemic) which might be found to constitute "good cause" under the statute for the continued detention of a defendant even without an EO. See CPL 180.80 (3) ().
The May 7th EO also modified the general suspension rules of earlier EOs with respect to CPL 190.80. This is the critical provision here. The May 7th EO provides:
Section 190.80 of the Criminal Procedure Law, to the extent that to the extent that3 a court must satisfy itself that good cause has been shown that a defendant should continue to be held on a felony complaint beyond forty-five...
To continue reading
Request your trial