Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Leroy Hawkins, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1996-10-24
Citations: 170 Misc. 2d 604
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Leroy Hawkins, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
[651 NYS2d 266]
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Leroy Hawkins, Defendant.
Supreme Court, Kings County,
October 24, 1996
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Robert Collini for defendant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County (Vicki Multer of counsel), for plaintiff.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Albert D. Koch, J.
The defendant moves for an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and a dismissal of the indictment. This court has read the Grand Jury minutes and finds that the indictment must be dismissed.
After presenting evidence to the Grand Jury, the Assistant District Attorney gave the following instruction: "Before I read the charges I'm about to present to you, I'd like to inform you that you'll be hearing additional evidence at a later time. Therefore, after you have deliberated on the charges that I'm about to present to you, you may not further deliberate on this matter until I have had an opportunity to present more evidence to you."
The jury was then instructed to consider a single count of robbery in the first degree, on which it found a true bill. The Grand Jury was thereafter presented additional evidence and charges related thereto and returned a true bill with regard to those charges.
The court finds that the instruction impaired the integrity of the Grand Jury because it insinuated that there was additional incriminating evidence that had not yet been presented. Alerting the Grand Jury to the fact that other, possibly more incriminating evidence existed, was the equivalent of a prosecutor at trial arguing in summation that he has knowledge of matters not in evidence; a practice which has been condemned (People v Ivey, 83 AD2d 788). Accordingly, the first count of the indictment must be dismissed.
With respect to the remaining counts, the court finds that once the Grand Jury had found a true bill on the first count, it was predisposed to find a true bill on the additional counts (see, People v Evans, 79 NY2d 407). Because the initial true bill was improperly obtained, the court finds that the additional counts obtained were tainted by the initial illegality. Accordingly, the remaining counts are also dismissed. The People are granted leave to re-present.