Judge Jonathan Lippman says events of past year led to a ‘crisis of confidence’ and seeks reforms to system in instances of police violence.
New York’s senior judge has proposed a bill for the state legislature that would dramatically reform how grand juries work in instances involving police violence, saying the events of the past year had led to “a crisis of confidence” in the justice system.
Judge Jonathan Lippman, chief judge of the New York court of appeals, the state’s highest judicial body, announced his proposed legislation in his annual State of the Judiciary speech on Tuesday.
In an interview on Wednesday, he described the current grand jury system as “an ancient institution dating back to medieval times”, and said it needs to be modernised to “meet the problems that we face in society today”.
Lippman took care not to directly criticise the deliberations of any recent contentious grand jury decisions, which include the cases of Eric Garner, killed by police in Staten Island, and Michael Brown, shot by police in Ferguson, Missouri.
In both instances, a grand jury declined to indict the officers involved.
He did say, however, that “there is a perception, in light of a number of recent cases in this country, including one in New York … that the prosecutor does not have the ability, because they work so closely with the police, to objectively present evidence to a grand jury when it comes to cases involving police-civilian encounters”.
There is, he said, “a perception that it’s not necessarily a fair proceeding”.
The legislation, which will be formally presented to the New York state legislature this week, contains two major proposed changes. The first part of the legislation proposes that grand jury proceedings which involve police-civilian encounters that end in assault or homicide are presided over by a judge.
“The first part of the proposal is based on this perception of conflict of interest, and the idea that prosecutors are ‘damned if they do, damned if they don’t’ – if they indict, they have problems, if they don’t indict, they have problems,” Lippman said.
Conversely, under his proposal, he said, a robust judicial presence would allow for “the judge as the neutral arbiter – somebody who brings gravitas to the proceedings”.
The second part of Lippman’s proposal is that grand jury proceedings should be made public unless a specific injunction against it is requested. Currently, in New York, grand jury deliberations are secret unless a judge specifically allows for a release. A legal battle to release the deliberations of the grand jury in the Eric Garner case is currently working its way through the courts.
“While the prosecution could seek an injunction, the whole record would be presumed to be made public, the testimony, questions, the whole process –everything but the deliberations [of the jury]. In this measure, we could bolster trust in the grand jury institution – and the justice system itself”.
Lippman said that he planned to begin lobbying legislators on behalf of the bill when lawmakers return to Albany on 24 February. “I’m hopeful that this – or something along these lines – will make [its]way into law,” he said.
“I think there is a consensus out there that we need change.”
Patrick Lynch, the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the city’s largest police union, released a statement on Wednesday condemning Lipmann’s proposal. “Judges already have a duty and responsibility to review all aspects of grand jury investigations,” the statement said.
“The rule of law should apply evenly and fairly to all without exception,” it continued. “There should not be a separate system of justice for police officers.”
Nicky Woolf in New York
