People v. Guzman

• Decision Date: 01 December 1983
• Citation: People v. Guzman, 60 N.Y.2d 403, 469 N.Y.S.2d 916, 457 N.E.2d 1143 (N.Y. 1983)
• Parties: , 457 N.E.2d 1143 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Guillermo GUZMAN, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert WELLS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 916

469 N.Y.S.2d 916

60 N.Y.2d 403, 457 N.E.2d 1143

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.Guillermo GUZMAN, Appellant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.Robert WELLS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 1, 1983.

Brian Sheppard and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant Guzman.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty. (Allan P. Root, Barbara D. Underwood, Nikki Kowalski, Asst. Dist. Attys., and Holly L. Siegel, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

Brian Sheppard and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant Wells.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

These appeals concern challenges that the underrepresentation of Hispanics in the Kings County Grand Jury pool denied defendants their rights to due process and equal protection.Inasmuch as there was no proof, on this record, of systematic exclusion of Hispanics or of intentional discrimination, defendants' motions to dismiss their respective indictments were properly denied.

I

Defendants were independently convicted of unrelated crimes committed in Kings County.Prior to their respective trials, defendants each moved to dismiss his indictment on the ground that Hispanics were unlawfully underrepresented in the Grand Jury pool in Kings County, as a result of discrimination in the selection process of potential jurors.Both defendants asserted violations of their statutory right to a Grand Jury selected from a fair cross section of the community (seeJudiciary Law, § 500).In addition, each raised constitutional arguments.Defendant Guzman, an Hispanic, argued that the discrimination violated his right to equal protection.Defendant Wells, a Black, argued that this underrepresentation of Hispanics in violation of equal protection violated his right to due process.

In Kings County, the selection process for jury service begins with a random computer selection of a predetermined number of prospective jurors who are mailed subpoenas, in race-blind notices, requiring them to report to the commissioner for an examination regarding their qualifications for jury service.There is an attempt to follow-up on summonses returned because of a wrong address.When a recipient answers the subpoena, he or she is given a questionnaire, requesting such information as residence, date of birth, marital status, extent of education, number and age of children, and prior convictions (seeJudiciary Law, § 513).An oral examination of the applicant is then conducted to determine the veracity of the responses.Those persons whose answers indicate that they are not qualified under the criteria set forth in sections 510and511 of the Judiciary Law are rejected.The reason for rejection--e.g., foreign citizenship, age, prior felony conviction, lack of good character, inability to read and write English with a sufficient degree of proficiency, or inability to speak English in an understandable manner (seeJudiciary Law, § 510)--is noted on the questionnaire.Qualified persons are then fingerprinted (seeJudiciary Law, § 514) on cards that do not include any information as to race or color.These qualified prospective jurors are then added to the master pool of grand and petit jurors.Names for the Grand Jury pool are drawn therefrom and placed in a sealed drum, from which names are removed in the ensuing year as required.

Guzman and the prosecutor stipulated, with the court's approval, that they would rely on the minutes of the record in the then pending case of People v. Best(Kings County, Ind. No. 869/1978), which had raised an identical charge of intentional, substantial underrepresentation of Hispanics in the Grand Jury pool of Kings County.¹Wells's motion requested a hearing or, in the alternative, that the court adopt the record in Best.The request for a hearing de novo was denied.

The motion challenging the Grand Jury pool in People v. Best was denied.Likewise, the defendants' motions were summarily denied by Supreme Court.The Appellate Division affirmed in both cases.In Guzman, the court held that the defendant had suffered no violation of his right to equal protection because the People adequately rebutted the presumption of intentional discrimination.Nor did the court find any violation of due process or of defendant's statutory right under section 500 of the Judiciary Law, reasoning that the jury was drawn from a fair cross section of the community because there was no proof of systematic exclusion of Hispanics from the Grand Jury pool.The Appellate Division affirmed in People v. Wells, 89 A.D.2d 1020, 454 N.Y.S.2d 849, relying on the reasons set forth in People v. Guzman, 89 A.D.2d 14, 454 N.Y.S.2d 852.

The questions presented here are whether the underrepresentation of Hispanics in the Kings County Grand Jury pool was caused by the systematic exclusion of Hispanics in violation of defendant Wells's right to due process or by intentional discrimination in violation of Guzman's right to equal protection.This court now affirms.

On appeal, defendants no longer argue that their statutory right to a Grand Jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community was violated (seeJudiciary Law, § 500).Thus, these claims are not addressed.As to the constitutional claims, each defendant has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case.If this condition is satisfied, the burden of proof shifts to the People to rebut the claim of unconstitutionality.Inasmuch as the elements of a prima facie case differ under due process and equal protection analyses, defendants' claims are discussed separately.

II

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a defendant from "indictment or trial by a jury that has been selected in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States"(Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 2168, 33 L.Ed.2d 83).Any person may challenge the exclusion of "any distinct group" from Grand Jury service because regardless of a person's race, he or she"has standing to challenge the system used to select his grand or petit jury, on the ground that it arbitrarily excludes from service the members of any race, and thereby denies him due process of law"(id., at p. 504, 92 S.Ct. at p. 2169).²"[T]he exclusion of a discernible class from jury service injures not only those defendants who belong to the excluded class, but other defendants as well, in that it destroys the possibility that the jury will reflect a representative cross section of the community"(id., at p. 500, 92 S.Ct. at p. 2167).³

In order to establish a violation of due process based on the absence of a fair cross section of the community in the jury pool, a defendant must demonstrate that a substantial and identifiable segment of the community was not included in the Grand Jury pool because the process used to select grand jurors "systematically excluded" that group from service (Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 503-504, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 2168-2169, 33 L.Ed.2d 83, supra;seeDuren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 66858 L.Ed.2d 579).Once defendant has made this prima facie showing, the State"bears the burden of justifying this infringement by showing attainment of a fair cross section to be incompatible with a significant state interest"(Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. at p. 368, 99 S.Ct. at p. 671;seePeters v. Kiff, supra, 407 U.S. at p. 500, n. 10, 92 S.Ct. at p. 2167 n. 10).To justify the exclusion, the State interest must be "manifestly and primarily advanced by those aspects of the jury-selection process, such as exemption criteria, that result in the disproportionate exclusion of a distinctive group"(Duren v. Missouri, supra, 439 U.S. at pp. 367-368, 99 S.Ct. at pp. 670-671).

The People do not controvert that Hispanics are a substantial and identifiable group in the community of Kings County.In addition, the People do not dispute and the evidence bears out that the number of Hispanics in the Grand Jury pool is not "reasonbly representative" of the number of Hispanics in the community (seeDuren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 668, 58 L.Ed.2d 579, supra ).Thus, defendant Wells established the first part of his claim.

But, in order for defendant to have completed his prima facie case establishing a violation of due process, he must have further demonstrated that the underrepresentation was caused by the "systematic exclusion" of Hispanics in the jury selection process (seePeters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 500, 504-505, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 2167, 2169-2170, 33 L.Ed.2d 83, supra;People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 43, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848, 359 N.E.2d 358;see, also, Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 366, 99 S.Ct. 664, 669, 58 L.Ed.2d 579, supra;Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 531-533, 95 S.Ct. 692, 698-699, 42 L.Ed.2d 690).This has been interpreted to mean that the challenge to the jury selection process must show that the exclusion of a particular group is "inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized"(Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 366, 99 S.Ct. 664, 669, 58 L.Ed.2d 579, supra ).

The record does not reflect that the underrepresentation of Hispanics was caused by any aspect of the selection process, so as to amount to "systematic exclusion."Two points in the procedure were identified as the times at which the number of Hispanics decreased significantly: after receipt of the qualification subpoenas, and during the qualification interviews.There was, however, nothing about these procedures that caused the particular exclusion of Hispanics.All jurors were summoned by the mailed subpoenas, which were sent to Hispanics in proportion to their percentage in the population.No different response procedures were established for Hispanics as compared to any other group or individuals; all were to report for an interview with the commissioner.The fact that a much lower percentage of Hispanics...