This program is a production of WAMC News.
From Albany, this is the Legislative Gazette,
a weekly half-hour review of New York State government and politics.
Your host is political scientist and syndicated columnist Dr. Allen Charton
of the State University.
In this edition of the Legislative Gazette, we'll explore the controversial issue
of changing the grand jury system in New York State.
We'll also have a report card on the bottle bill,
and a budget update.
As of airtime, late Friday, the governor and legislative leaders were still working on the budget,
which is supposed to be in place by Monday.
Bill Graulty has the latest.
I think we are on the verge of adopting a budget that is
extra ordinarily good for the people of the state.
That was early Friday morning, Governor Cuomo emerging from a late bargaining session,
sounding at last somewhat confident about reaching budget agreement.
Four days, he and Speaker Fink had been at loggerheads with Senate Majority Leader Warren Anderson
over the fate of four special taxes.
Ultimately, Anderson agreed to allow the taxes to stay on the books.
There'll be a $550 million income tax cut,
a $100 million cut in motor vehicle registration fees,
and a $70 million reduction in taxes on in-state phone calls.
Although that somewhat complex agreement allows the budget to go forward,
the governor says the budget is not signed, sealed, and delivered.
There's still a lot that has to be done.
We don't have agreement on the education aid formula or local assistance.
We don't have agreement on many items,
but none of them present in super-evulet problems.
The law of jam has now broken.
As talks continued late Friday, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fink
was saying it was downfall and actual vote on the budget could come before Monday.
April 1st, the deadline for having the new budget in place,
and yet still anything is possible.
This is Bill Gralty.
Joining us now is Dr. Lee Marringoff.
He's the Director of the Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College,
and our resident expert on public opinion polls.
The New York State budget has attracted its share of deadlines this past week as the
April 1st deadline approaches.
Attention has centered on the key actors, the governor,
the guardian leader Anderson, and Speaker Fink.
Will they each give a little to form a compromise who will bend the most?
What will we learn about the political skill of each politician?
These are the types of questions that budget time in Albany brings out.
The ups and downs of political careers are important,
and there is a place I'm sure for discussion about how governor Cuomo
handles or fails to handle, think, and Anderson and others.
A unique also to remember that budget's determined much more than winners and losers
among the politicians careening around the corridors of the state capital.
Budget considerations reflect the priorities of decision makers and presumably the constituents
they represent.
What to do with a budget surplus is just such a vital issue.
Clearly, the decision has been made to eliminate or reduce certain taxes,
but how much and which ones?
It is equally important to recognize that the extra cash presently on hand provides the
opportunity to establish programs to aid individuals in need,
but how much of a surplus do you return in tax breaks, and how much do you use to address problems
people are enduring?
The answer depends largely on the state's economy and the well-being of the people.
The perception around the corridors and all of the needs these days and among the citizens
throughout the state is that we're enjoying a major economic recovery,
and it certainly years to so that unemployment is down,
inflation has been lowered, and economic activity generally is up.
But is everyone sharing in the economic recovery?
Should decision makers think twice about what to do with a budget surplus?
In a survey we did at the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion earlier this month,
it was found that it's a substantial number of New Yorkers are not better off financially than
they were last year.
In fact, 19% of state residents reported their economically worse off than they were last year.
Although there is an economic recovery, our perceptions need to be revised.
Not we're all sharing in it.
Some additional statistics support this assertion.
41% of the state residents indicate they're having difficulty meeting monthly expenses,
not surprisingly these individuals are concentrated in the lower income groups.
What this all means is that many people are having to undergo basic necessities.
One in four, New York state residents reported they're unable to afford clothing,
it was necessary for the cells or a member of their family.
20% were unable to seek medical attention.
They needed and 15% were forced to go without food at some point during the past year.
When we hear about all the squabbling over the budget that is occurring among the power
wielders in our state government, let us also remember that more than just a matter of dollars
in cents, the well-being of millions of state residents depend upon these budget decisions.
They too are eager to hear the results.
In the meantime, for the legislative gazette, this is me, Marangoff at the Marist College Institute
for Public opinion and get ready.
This week, the Temporary Commission on Returnable Beverage Containers issued its report on the
bottle bill. Ric Lepp Kowski has our report. The bottle law is working.
That claim was made this week by the Temporary State Commission on Returnable Beverage Containers.
Chairman of the Commission, Neil Gollum says that despite the inconvenience, most New Yorkers
perceive the bottle law as a good law. According to commission findings, beverage container litter
has been reduced 70 to 80 percent while hourly employment in the state has increased by a net
of 5,000 jobs as a result of the law. One of the biggest issues confronting the commission
was the problem concerning handling fees and unredeemed deposits. Gollum said that voting on the issue
was very close, but the commission decided to recommend that handling costs for the distributor
be increased from one and a half cents to two cents per container. To the extent that handling fees
are included in charges made by distributors to retailers, handling costs shall be separately listed
on distributors' invoices, so they will not be considered product cost upon which markup is charged
by the retailer. The bottling industry has maintained that all unredeemed deposits belong to the
industry to help compensate for handling costs. The recommendation for an increase in the handling fee
is seen as an effort to appease the bottlers because the commission also recommended to have all
unredeemed deposits turned over to the state. Gollum explained that the money would be used to
reimburse any third-party redemption shender for handling costs over and above the two-cent fee.
Bottling industry members feel these measures of increasing handling fees and turning over
unredeemed deposits will adversely affect the industry and the final victim of these proposals
will be the consumer. President of the Beverage Wholesaleers Association, Al Lubrano.
That means the beverage industry will lose on both counts if they have to turn over the
underdeemed deposits and increase the handling fee, they're going to lose on two counts,
which means that the consumer will be shocked twice once they increase the handling fee and once for
the primary being deposits which are now being used by the beverage industry to offset
other costs of the Abonola. I think it moves that source of revenue, if the beverage industry loses
that source of revenue, they must go to increased prices to recover their costs as they will
have to do with the increase in the handling fee. So if you will, it's a double-wammy on the consumer.
Governor Cuomo says the unredeemed nickels belong to the people of New York state,
not the bottlers, and the governor has proposed using unredeemed deposits for the cleanup of
toxic waste, but legislative leaders foresee some problems with the governor's proposal and have
yet to embrace the measure. This story was written and produced by Larry Louis-Dus, I'm Reclept Kowski
in Albany.
Bernard Getz case has thrust many issues into the arena of public discussion.
One of these is the role of the grand jury in New York's criminal justice system.
As you'll recall, Getz admitted shooting four youths on a New York City subway after they
allegedly threatened him. He appeared before two grand juries. The first indicted him only on
weapons charges, but this week a second grand jury heard new evidence and chose to indict Getz on
charges of attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and weapons violations.
The Getz case may have put the grand jury into the public limelight, but even before everyone
knew who Bernie Getz was, the issue of reforming the grand jury system was under consideration.
We're going to discuss that and other related issues, but first, a background report from Bill
Grawlty. The grand jury is deeply rooted in common law. The inferiority its function is to prevent
authority is from arbitrarily charging people with crimes. The state must appear before the grand
jury and present evidence as to why a person should be charged. The grand jury then weighs the
evidence and testimony and decides whether or not to indict. Well, that's how it works in theory.
In fact, some people are now alleging that grand juries have become tools of district attorneys
who they argue have too much control and influence in the grand jury room.
Legislation has been filed by Assemblyman Ralph Goldstein to sharply cut back on the use of grand
juries, replacing them in most cases with preliminary hearings before a judge who would then decide if
there is sufficient evidence to put a person on trial. Let the DA bring on a complaint before a judge
of the court who will then decide two issues. One has a crime been committed. Two is there
reason to believe that this defendant that's charged committed? One argument against the grand jury
system heard from such disparate legal sources as Bernard gets defense attorney and the chief judge
of the court of appeals is that with the power they now have district attorneys can get grand juries
to indict a ham sandwich. You can indict a ham sandwich as Judge Wachley said. Well, this is all
well and good except it's a protection for the individual. Your alternative, of course, would be the
district attorney makes his mind up and says this person will be in charge with the felony.
So it works. That's Assemblyman Arnold Crossgitt, his resume lists lawyer, district attorney,
judge, and now Assemblyman. Not only does he argue that the grand jury system works, he refutes
another common criticism that in America today when a person is indicted, the public for all
intents and purposes considers him to be guilty. The constitutional guarantee of innocent until proven
guilty, notwithstanding. Crossgitt argues that the alternatives would be no better. If you didn't
have a grand jury system and some district attorney said Arnold Crossgitt, no Joe Blow or Sam Smith,
I'm going to charge him with a crime. What difference is it? I mean, at least with a grand jury,
you have 23 people who sit and listen to evidence and make a determination as to whether the
person should be charged. It's an effective tool for defense attorneys, not maybe not effective.
It's another tool for defense attorneys because this testimony, the person had to go before that
grand jury and say, yes, I saw this, I did this and this is what happened and this is one other
time he's testified and you could test his credibility later on and he's changed his mind.
Another problem cited by opponents of the grand jury system is the ability of the prosecution to
grant immunity. That is, allowing witnesses to testify before the grand jury with no fear of later
being charged with the crimes about which they're talking. Assemblyman Goldstein says this practice
can lead to abuse and his proposal for pretrial hearings instead of grand juries deals with that
issue as well. Invite the people in even subpoena them in, they would come before the court. Now,
he doesn't, the DA does not have to give immunity. He just subpoena witnesses, same as he would on
a trial. Now, someone gets to understand they don't want to testify. They will now say to the court,
I refuse to testify in the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. The court will then
determine whether or not that fifth amendment privilege should be sustained. If it is, he doesn't
have to testify. If it isn't, he can be made to testify. There's no more immunity problem. It
disappears. So you should say, gee, why don't the DAs like it then? That would be great. Well,
because the ability to grant immunity is power. Assemblyman Ralph Goldstein, I'm Bill
Goldstein. Now, with that in mind, will he hear from a man who is on the firing line with grand
juries on a regular basis? Albany County District Attorney Saul Greenberg, who comments on grand juries
and other issues. Mr. Greenberg, the same woman Goldstein says he wants to do away with grand juries.
You think that's a bad idea. Why? Well, I think that the grand jury system right now, which has
been operable in this country for over 200 years, operates very well. And why change it if it's operating
well? I see nothing wrong with it. I think, unfortunately, what's happened is that there's been a
perception created in the minds of the public, particularly through the print press, that there's
something mysterious about the grand jury and that the inferences that district attorneys
abuse their power before the grand jury. Now, I know you're going to say to me that district
attorneys have no business and shouldn't abuse their power and get people indicted because they
still have to face a regular jury. And if they have a weak case and they've shoved it through the
grand jury, then it doesn't make any sense. Is that right? That's wrong because of this reason. We
like the grand jury to make it that preliminary determination on our presentation of legally sufficient
facts. The show probably caused that a crime committed and the defendant named is the one who committed
the crime. Now, unfortunately, what's happened is there are certain cases we put before the grand
jury that are basically weak cases. But these are cases that are put there because these defendants
have been up to the water draw off once too often. They've been given a lot of opportunities in
the past. Now, the judges in lower courts where they have been charged with felonies, want them
sent up to the superior court before which court you'll present to the grand juries. We occasionally
have to do that. Also, a grand jury's presentation by the district attorney who is the advisor to the
grand juries has to put in testimony and transcript is made of every word said and typed up almost
immediately after the hearings and subject to judicial review so that there is a check and balance
upon the district attorney's performance before the grand jury. You're telling me that if that the
minutes of the grand jury will eventually get before a judge and the judge will be able to review
that and see if anything improper has gone on for the district by the district attorney, right?
That is correct. As a matter of fact, I've been in office over 10 years. I would say that not more
than a half a dozen indictments have been thrown out because of the lack of sufficient legal evidence
before grand jury. Does the judge actually get an opportunity, that's a bad word, does the judge
actually sit down and read each of these grand jury proceedings seems to me that's an awful lot of
herbivage? That's true, but where the defense lawyer makes was so called omnibus motion, he will claim
that there were not legally sufficient facts before the grand jury and he demands a review of the
grand jury minutes which judges do. It's part of their function. Now, Assemblyman Goldstein says
that essentially our law is adversarial. You have a prosecutor who brings a charge, you have a
defense attorney who defends that charge. That's the way it is in a regular trial. Except in the
grand jury, it isn't that way because in the grand jury says Goldstein, the district attorney not only
brings the stuff but also acts essentially as the judge overseeing the proceeding. In other words,
he gets to determine which evidence is brought, which gets asked which question and that stops it
from being adversarial. It's like giving all the power to the district attorney.
Well, we're bound by the rules of law with respect to the manager. We present
where, for instance, that would be a case where you need corroboration, where there's an accomplice
put in there who a person who becomes a so-called states witness who may have been a participant
in the crime, but we feel that he was a lesser participant and we can use his testimony. His
testimony alone is not sufficient so that even before the grand jury, we have a accomplice
testimony and must have independent corroboration right before the grand jury. So that way we are bound
by the rules as you would be at a trial. Except that the grand jury presentation is not a regular trial.
We do not have to put in all the witnesses, all of our evidence. All we have to present is legally
sufficient evidence to show probable cause of crimes committed to crime. I see the great problem
with respect to the grand jury is because it's a secret proceeding and I get into why it's secret
in the minute if you'll permit me that. Therefore, it's suspect of being corrupt.
They create suspicion and the print media particularly has just capitalized on that suspicion.
Because they basically, most media tend to be suspicious of public officials anyway.
You said secrecy is something that sticks in their crawl. The Constitution of the United States calls
for open trials. Now when I'm indicted before a grand jury, my mother-in-law slams the door in my face,
I lose my job, there's a lot of negative things that happen if somebody is indicted.
So that it's not this sort of neutral, unharmed-less thing that happens, you really are going to
suffer if you're indicted. Oh, doubt about the fact that the power given to a DA is awesome.
And I think that the DA is aware of that. At least most DA's I know are aware of that.
Consequently, we don't go in before grand jury on a vengeful thing for a vengeful reason.
We realize the onus created when person is in diet the suspect of fact he or she may be acquitted
out of trial. We're aware of that. You know, the defendants have a right to go before the
grand jury. It's not a fact under the law that they're given notice of grand jury proceedings and
they're invited to come forward. Why is it that 98.3% of the defendants never appear before the
grand jury? Because you know, it was a matter of fact or guilty of what they've been charged with
or some element of that crime. But the law says that you're deemed innocent until proven guilty
and the burdens upon the people to prove this case beyond the reasonable doubt. Now the reason for
the secrecy is very interesting. Twofold basically. One, proceedings are secret in order to induce
people as witnesses that come forward without fear of reprisal. Now the press were there and they
said that John Doe said this about John Schmoll. John Schmoll was going to go after John Doe when
he comes out. But a person appearing before the grand jury does not have to reveal to anybody
outside that grand jury room as to what he or she said. So in order to induce these people to come
forth and speak the truth without fear of reprisal, it's kept secret. What do you think this is
all going on a political term? Do you suspect that this thing has any real chance of passage this
year? I hope not. I hope not. I don't like judge or a Sam Emman Goldstein. We've been very
vociferous about it for a couple of years. As a matter of fact, he and I have locked horns in a
very friendly way with respect to our positions. He and I will be on a panel for the fun for the
modern courts in the near future. And Constraint Will take opposing positions. He's a very
very vociferous individual. He's very articulate. And I hope he gives me a chance to talk sometimes
when you're with him. He doesn't. But in a friendly way, he's a great guy. Well, that's his feeling.
A lot of people feel that way. But on balance, a lot of people want to make the grand jury and
no friend the grand jury themselves as prosecutors and actually, and it's not all that bad.
I mean, a Sam Emman Goldstein talks about the fact of mandatory preliminary hearings. Let's get
down to one practical point here. He comes from Queens. Are you familiar with the criminal justice
system in New York City and the five boroughs there? Yes. With the exception of Richmond, Staten Island.
The other four boroughs are just rolling over in workload with respect to criminal justice system.
Preliminary hearings right now are conducted in the lower courts and your misdemeanor courts.
Right now in the city of New York, if you as a defense lawyer represent a person charged with a
misdemeanor offense, all you have to do is ask for a trial because you'll never get a trial within
a statutory period of time and then you move for dispecial for failure to get a speedy trial.
How if they can handle misdemeanor cases right now by the tens of thousands? Are they going to be
able to add the handle the added burden of mandatory preliminary hearings where you're talking about
tens of thousands of felony charges in the course of any given year? I know you've been a study
of this. Some of those preliminary hearings can be fairly extensive. No doubt about it. Look at California,
the McMaster's case with a child abused by a child's by nursery operations. That's running into
months now. Is it take you to indict somebody before a grand jury? Oh, maybe a half hour, three
quarters of an hour, sometimes two hours. It depends upon the nature of the case and the seriousness
of the crime. If you're talking about a homicide, you're going to bring in more witnesses. You have to
have more specialized witnesses. It may take two hours, but I assure you a preliminary hearing in
an homicide would take days. We've gotten statistical reports from the DA in Los Angeles County
in California who indicated that their workload has gone up tremendously because of mandatory
preliminary hearings. These are the attorneys in this state are extraordinarily powerful compared
to some of the states, anything? I think they're powerful all over. It's a very powerful job,
basically, and as a matter of fact, it's awesome. I would say that next to the governor,
possibly one other state official that I being the DA, the DA of all the county,
stands in position, maybe being one of the most powerful political figures in the state of New York.
I want to follow that up with you because I think you're right. You are essentially, if a
charge is going to be brought against the public official on the state level, it's probably,
and it's a state crime, it's probably solid greenberg that's going to have to bring it, right?
Possibly, right. And then we can investigate legislative actions. We can investigate many things,
investigate various department actions, conduct along, embarrassing grand jury proceedings.
Word gets out because there are too many people involved in these departments. They know by
particularly when there's some people from that department. That's how word gets out regarding
grand jury proceedings. Let me try to trap yourself for a moment, but at least let me as a DA,
as I know you tell me I was a target, I'm going to try to identify this as a potential trap question.
If you go up there lobbying for the district attorneys and you are a guy with the clonic cloud,
potential cloud over the legislature, do you see the point I'm getting to that in fact they
may say, wait a second now, this is a guy I may have to deal with in another sense sometime?
No, I don't think that has any bearing with respect to what they decide to do or not to do with
respect to legislation that the DA, the DA's association may propose. We've locked horns with
them many, many times and got to realize that most of the committees up there with alloys involved
are the French lawyers and so you have to do a lot of convincing to get them to move in certain
fields. We come up there frankly with proposals at a base upon our experience. You know the legislature
likes to brag about the fact that they have enacted a trans-emount of anti-crime legislation.
What is anti-crime legislation? There's no such thing. You know you and I know there's no
anti-crime legislation. The fact of the matter is if a crimes committee is committed, they may
create laws that may enhance the ability to prosecute somebody or may act as a hurdle in the
prosecution field, but there's no such thing as anti-crime legislation. What do the DA association want
to do on the death penalty? The DA's association as a matter of fact will have a meeting very,
very shortly. It's executive committee to determine that and as you know the governor is interested
in life without parole. The DA's association now, it's January, winter meeting this year in New
York City, took that up and it's been tabled for the time being, but there is some feeling
among the DAs that if you're not going to get a death penalty, at least you might be able to get
something that'll bring you closer to that. Now not all DAs are interested and support the
death penalty theory. I have publicly declared that I would be interested in having a death penalty
on the books to be used very, very sparingly and of all the homicide that we've handled,
Albany County since I've been to you and I'd say we probably handle 150 of them. If I had a choice
to recommend only one for the death penalty, that would be the limitless smash. Albany County District
Attorney, Saul Greenberg, there's lots to be said about grand juries. Now you've heard from some of
the top experts in the state and in many ways the gulf between all of them isn't that distant.
They all want what's best and what's feasible. The DAs know that there's a lot wrong with the
criminal justice system. One thing is the incredible crowding of the courts, especially in New York City.
The district attorney's argue that to replace grand juries with a simple charge or information
will result in preliminary hearings that will take on the tone of full fledged trials.
You may remember the old Perry Mason series on television. All that pilaver used to hear and see
were not trials. Those were preliminary hearings. So argue the DAs at the very moment when we need
to save time in the court, we'll be constructing a whole new layer of problems which will constrict
the system even more. But along come the other side who said that the grand jury system as it is
now operating is just not fair. They say that our legal system is built on an adversarial basis.
The defense versus the prosecution and the idea is that the truth will out. But in the grand jury,
the DA gets to present all the evidence and call the questions and question all the witnesses
as well as the grand immunity to some but not to others in order to get the ones to talk
who they want to talk. But of course, it all comes down to who the DA is. Most DAs understand
that getting indictments that are flimsy will end up in their potential later embarrassment in court.
On the other hand, as it has been recently said, if he or she wants to, the DA can indict a ham
sandwich. The recent indictment of Bernard Getz is a case in point. When a first grand jury said
no to a Getz indictment, the DA saw a second grand jury with quote, new information and granting
immunity from prosecution to two of the thugs who have rap sheets as long as your arm. That practice
is questionable at very least. And if you haven't caught my drift, I'm questioning it.
Albany County has a fine DA in the person of Saul Greenberg, a moderate and temperate man who
has withstood all kinds of political pressure to follow the political winds of the moment.
But New York County, otherwise known as Manhattan, well they have a different type of DA,
one who chooses to indict the ham sandwich. None of this is to build a case for Bernie Getz,
only to show that the present system could be made fairer. Maybe it's possible to save the
grand jury system but to make some adjustments. Maybe the answer is to look at the way that immunity
is granted. Maybe the answer is to give the accused a little more protection before the grand jury.
What we need here is goodwill and men and women working together in the interest of a fair system,
which is allowed to function without strangling itself so that those who are guilty hide behind due
process to escape any punishment. Men and women of goodwill should be able to work out the needs
of both sides on this important question.
That's our show for this week. Join us again next week for another look at state government
and politics. Go growl to producers and edits this program. Rick Lupkowski is associate editor.
He had helped this week from Larry Louis. Please address comments and questions to us at WAMC,
Fox 13,000 Albany, New York, 122, 12. I'm Alan Shartock.
The legislative gazette is a production of WAMC news. Alan Shartock is executive producer.
This program is made possible with funds provided by the state University of New York College at Newples.
The state government has been working on the development of WAMC news.
The state government has been working on the development of WAMC news.
The state government has been working on the development of WAMC news.
The state government has been working on the development of WAMC news.
The state government has been working on the development of WAMC news.
The state government has been working on the development of WAMC news.
The state government has been working on the development of WAMC news.
The state government has been working on the development of WAMC news.
