By JESSE McKINLEY
New York’s top judge proposed on Tuesday that
judges oversee grand juries deliberating police-related killings of civilians
and be granted greater leeway to make the testimony to such juries available to
the public.
In his annual State of the Judiciary address in
Albany, Jonathan Lippman, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals, called the
grand jury system “a relic of another time” that needed overhaul in light of
deadly police encounters, apparently a reference to the case of Eric Garner, an
unarmed man who died after a police chokehold last summer.
In suggesting new legislation, Judge Lippman said
while it was “not my role to defend or decry a particular grand jury decision,”
the system as a whole must be considered fair.
“The grand jury is a vital component of our
judicial system,” Judge Lippman said. “Under the law, it is first and foremost
a part of the court and an institution for which the judiciary is ultimately
responsible.”
Judge Lippman is just the latest of many state
and local leaders to weigh in after the Garner case, in which a grand jury on
Staten Island declined to indict the police officers involved in the
altercation. The decision set off protests and added to a national debate over
the criminal justice system.
Last month, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo made criminal
justice reform a central tenet of his State of the State address, promising a
seven-point plan, like allowing district attorneys to release information about
grand jury deliberations and appointing a special monitor to review proceedings
and recommend prosecutors.
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, who
attended Judge Lippman’s speech and later praised his proposals, has also
sought new powers to look into killings of unarmed civilians by law enforcement
officers.
Judge Lippman’s ideas would go further — placing
judges squarely in the middle of grand jury activities, something that national
groups say would set New York’s judges apart from jurists in other states.
Josh Marquis, a board member of the National
District Attorneys Association and a district attorney in Oregon, said he felt
such a proposal ventured too far into law enforcement’s terrain.
“The grand jury is not part of the adjudicative
process,” he said. “It’s part of the charging process.”
The proposals face an uncertain future in the
Legislature, with a newly elected Republican majority in the Senate and a
Democrat-dominated Assembly still reeling from a recent change of leadership.
Judge Lippman had a close relationship with Sheldon Silver, the Lower East Side
Democrat who stepped aside as the Assembly speaker this month after his arrest
on federal corruption charges.
The chief judge’s speech garnered mild reactions
in the Capitol.
Mike Whyland, a spokesman for the new speaker,
Carl E. Heastie, said that the proposal merited consideration, and that the
Assembly would convene hearings on criminal justice this year. A spokesman for
the governor noted Mr. Cuomo’s stated commitment to overhauling the grand jury
system, adding, “We will continue to work with all who share in these goals.”
In an
interview on Tuesday, Judge Lippman said that he had not discussed his
proposals with Mr. Heastie or the Republican leader of the Senate, Dean G.
Skelos of Long Island. Senator Skelos did not respond to requests for comment.
Initial reaction from New York City’s largest
police union suggested that Judge Lippman’s proposed legislation was unwelcome.
“Judges already have a duty and responsibility to
review all aspects of grand jury investigations, including instructions for
deliberations given by prosecutors,” said Patrick J. Lynch, president of the
Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, who called Judge Lippman’s proposals
unnecessary. “The rule of law should apply evenly and fairly to all without
exception. There should not be a separate system of justice for police
officers.”
In Albany, Judge Lippman said that prosecutors
were seen by some as too close to the police to fairly impanel a grand jury
inquiry; he envisioned a much more muscular role for judges, who now offer only
basic guidance. He suggested that judges be physically present in grand jury
rooms in cases of homicide or felony assault of civilians involving the police:
making legal rulings, questioning witnesses and rejecting “inadmissible
evidence or improper questions.” A judge would also be required to “provide
final legal instructions before the grand jury deliberates.”
“This puts the ultimate responsibility for the
grand jury where it belongs — with the court,” he said.
In addition, the chief judge also proposed
lifting “the veil of secrecy,” allowing judges to release information about
grand jury proceedings when they decide not to indict, including the legal
instructions provided and testimony.
Currently, such proceedings are sealed under
state law, so judges have little choice but to deny requests to release
information when a grand jury has declined to indict someone.
Kenneth P. Thompson, a Democrat who is the
district attorney in Brooklyn, offered qualified support for the disclosure
element of Judge Lippman’s proposals, saying he would support releasing the
transcripts of grand jury proceedings in police-involved deaths, “so long as a
court oversees the process to ensure that witnesses are protected.”
For his part, Judge Lippman, who is retiring this
year, said that prosecutors themselves were often unfairly accused of being
biased, typically by community members who believe that the system favors those
in law enforcement, and who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of a
centuries-old grand jury mechanism.
“Let’s face it: Able and dedicated prosecutors
and the grand jury process cannot win in these inherently incendiary
situations,” he said. “Damned if you do and damned if you don’t, no matter how
strict the adherence to fairness and the rule of law.”
James C. McKinley Jr. contributed reporting.
