People v. Hussein
| Decision Date | 14 March 1991 |
| Citation | 568 N.Y.S.2d 296,150 Misc.2d 119 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Muneer HUSSEIN, Defendant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Bassam AYOUB, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City (Brenda Morris, of counsel), for the People.
Joseph M. Elhilow, Brooklyn, for defendant Hussein.
Robert W. Thabit, New York City, for defendant Ayoub.
The defendants move to dismiss their respective indictments for failure to voir dire the grand jurors. They argue that the integrity of the grand juries was undermined by the omission of questioning to ascertain whether the grand jurors could be fair and impartial and base their votes solely on the evidence. The voir dire supposedly would have revealed whether they would be influenced by their emotions concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, by ethnic bias or by the publicity allegedly surrounding the "Palestinian-American" demonstration at the Israeli Mission to the United Nations on May 22, 1990 from which these charges stem.
The defendants are charged with assaulting police officers, riot and inciting to riot. While they do not establish the intensity of the media coverage of this event or their arrests, they assert there was publicity of the demonstration and, of course, of the developments abroad that preceded and were being protested by it. They also argue that New York City, especially, is focused on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the intifada. Indeed, this conflict is an international ingredient in the politics of this city equal in value to many local issues. Thus, defendants believe that only an intensive voir dire could have revealed the prejudices against defendants or their cause harbored by citizens who served on the grand juries that indicted them. They contend that they may have been indicted by individuals influenced by this animus, thus depriving them of a fair and impartial grand jury.
The People rely on the presumption of regularity.
There is no Federal constitutional right to be prosecuted by indictment following presentation of evidence to a grand jury, but when a state has a grand jury system, the United States Constitution (Amendments 5 and 14) mandates fairness and impartiality, as does the New York Constitution (Article I, Sect. 6). This mandate is the essence of due process. Defendants would translate its recognition automatically into a per se requirement that grand jurors be examined about their possible biases. Neither constitutional due process nor public policy dictates this result.
First is the distinction in function between the grand jury and the petit jury; the one accuses and the other determines. Second, the precedents mandating close examination of trial jurors rarely, if ever, apply to grand jurors. Third, there is not a whit of evidence that the grand juries that indicted these defendants, principally for their conduct in injuring police officers, were in any way biased against them due to the cause they espoused. *
These cases do not raise issues of systematic exclusion of a particular ethnic group from the grand jury. See Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 51 L.Ed.2d 498; Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400, 62 S.Ct. 1159, 86 L.Ed. 1559; United States v. Dioguardi, 332 F.Supp. 7, 20 (SDNY 1971). Neither do these defendants draw strength for their applications from procedures implicated in People v. Prior, 268 A.D. 717, 54 N.Y.S.2d 150, aff'd 294 N.Y. 405, 63 N.E.2d 8 and People v. Brophy, 304 N.Y. 391, 107 N.E.2d 504. The procedure of Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) § 239(b), later codified in CCP § 232, has receded in favor of a system, no longer based on challenges, in which the court may refuse to swear a grand juror upon a finding of disqualification, CPL 190.20(2)(b). **
Modern constitutional jurisprudence indulges a presumption of regularity. This places the burden on the defendants to make a specific showing of prejudice from the publicity or the state of mind of the grand jurors. Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541, 548-549, 82 S.Ct. 955, 959-960, 8 L.Ed.2d 98; Melville v. Morgenthau, 307 F.Supp. 738, 740-741 (SDNY, 1969); Democratic County v. Nadjari, 52 A.D.2d 70, 74, 383 N.Y.S.2d 311. These authorities strongly imply, if they do not express, that it is unnecessary to voir dire the grand jury in the absence of specific proof of prejudice or special circumstances.
The defendants have made no showing of prejudice or special circumstances. Their cases are rather pedestrian, involving, in large measure, accusations of assaults against police officers. The defendants have failed to demonstrate the overarching media coverage of the intensity that prompted a voir dire of the second grand jury in People v. Goetz, 131 Misc.2d 1, 2, 13-14, 502 N.Y.S.2d 577, aff'd 116...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grand Jury Investigation of Death of Diallo, In re
... ... Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney of Bronx County (Jean Joyce of counsel), for People of the State of New York ... ROBERT G. SEEWALD, J ... On February 26, 1999, the law firm representing one of the ... These appellate cases, while perhaps not controlling at the Grand Jury stage (see, People v. Hussein, 150 Misc.2d 119, 120, 568 N.Y.S.2d 296 ["precedents mandating close examination of trial jurors rarely, if ever, apply to grand jurors"] ), are ... ...
-
People v. Roberts
... ... Burke, 700 F.2d 70, cert. denied 464 U.S. 816, 104 S.Ct. 72, 78 L.Ed.2d 85; United States v. Myers, 510 F.Supp. 323; United States v. Mandel, 415 F.Supp. 1033; People v. King, 48 A.D.2d 457, 370 N.Y.S.2d 52; People v. Hussein, 150 Misc.2d 119, 568 N.Y.S.2d 296), and our in camera review of the Grand Jury minutes reveals that the grand [198 A.D.2d 453] jurors were appropriately instructed on this issue and that no evidence of bias existed ... SULLIVAN, J.P., ... ...
-
People v. Connolly, 2008 NY Slip Op 50108(U) (N.Y. County Ct. 1/10/2008)
... ... Welch, 2AD3d 1354, 135, citing People v. Wood, 291 AD 824, quoting People v. Santmyer, 255 AD3d 871 ... People v. Hussein, 150 Misc 2d 119, 120 defines the roles of Grand and Petit Jury as follows: ... "There is a distinction in function between the grand jury and the petit jury; the one accuses and the other determines. Second, the precedents mandating close examination of trial jurors rarely, if ... ...