BY RAUL HERNANDEZ
The sensational and bold headlines in a story in the New York Post last week: “Murder verdict tossed because his mom couldn’t find a seat”
But the headline should have stated: “ Murder Verdict Tossed Out Because the Judge and Prosecutors Are Ignorant of Constitutional Law.”
The Post article omits a lot of facts and doesn’t mention the two people who should have been held accountable for the retrial – the presiding judge and the prosecutor who tried this case.
Worse, it sparks public outrage, and rightfully so if the story ,as it was reported, was completely accurate and all the facts were presented, including how the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution apply to this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court Case: Presley v. Georgia Case
Four years ago, Supreme Court, justices made it very clear in the 2010 Presley vs. Georgia case that the public, which includes the defendants’ mothers, can’t be kicked out during jury selection because the courtroom is too small to accommodate both potential jurors and the public.
But the New York Post and it’s reporter apparently didn’t know about the Supreme Court ruling or were more interested in publishing sensationalism under OMG! Headlines than gathering all the facts, simply put practicing Journalism 101.
The New York Post story was later published in the Washington Times and The Drudge Report. It also appeared in The Most Holy Monastery web site and of all places Storm Front. Org., a “White Pride- World Wide” site.
The Post’s story stated that 23-year-old Daniel Floyd, a Brooklyn black man, was “found guilty by a jury of shooting a rival dead at a dice game. Floyd got 15 years to life in prison.”
“But the state’s highest court overturned the guilty verdict — all because Floyd’s mother couldn’t find a seat in the courtroom during jury selection,” the Post story stated.
This is why the New York Post didn’t let the facts get in the way of its sensationalism:
- The first sentence in the story stated: “Meet Daniel Floyd — the luckiest “killer” in New York.”
- The 2010 Supreme Court Case Presley vs. Georgia is never mentioned in the story. This case states that the public, which includes the murder suspect’s mother, have a constitutional right to attend jury selection.
- A large photograph of an angry black woman who is the murder defendant’s mother is plastered on the news story. Underneath the woman’s photo is the caption: “Melissa Floyd, mother of Daniel Floyd, leaves Brooklyn Supreme Court on Monday. She found a seat this time.”
- The Post story stated that Floyd was back in a Brooklyn courtroom for a pre-retrial hearing, as was the heartbroken mother of the man he had been convicted of killing.
- There are quotes from the victim’s mother: “It’s very frustrating,” said Linda Dixon Hill, whose son, Leon Hill, was gunned down in the March 9, 2008, gambling dispute. “He was found guilty by a jury [and then] the Court of Appeals overturned it,” she said sadly, adding that Leon’s daughter was 4 months old when he was killed. She is now 6.
- The newspaper also published the OMG! quotes from jurors: “A juror who voted to convict Floyd was shocked to learn of the stunning reversal. “On a technicality like there was no room in the courtroom! That’s something new for me. I don’t think that’s right,” said the woman, who didn’t want her name used.”
- Here is another juror gem: “Oh my gosh! This is very surprising, boy, because I didn’t know people could get off once they were convicted,” the 65-year-old public-school teacher said.
- On his initial appeal, The Post reported that “the Appellate Division had found (Judge) Gary’s offer to get a seat for Floyd’s mom once some juror candidates had been weeded out was sufficient — and upheld the conviction. But the higher court disagreed.”
In the 2010 case, Supreme Court justices ordered judges to make room for the public during a trial, including finding seats so people can sit and watch prosecutors and defense lawyers pick a jury.
The trial judge in the Presley case said:
” ‘Well, the uncle can certainly come back in once the trial starts. There’s no, really no need for the uncle to be present during jury selection… . [W]e have 42 jurors coming up. Each of those rows will be occupied by jurors. And his uncle cannot sit and intermingle with members of the jury panel. But, when the trial starts, the opening statements and other matters, he can certainly come back into the courtroom.’ “
The defendant, Eric Presley who was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, appealed, citing his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
In 2010, the United States Supreme in the case of Presley vs. Georgia agreed with the defendant and overturned Presley’s conviction, noting that the public-trial right is founded in both the Sixth and First Amendment.
The Supreme Court said in its ruling:
“Trial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials. Nothing in the record shows that the trial court could not have accommodated the public at Presley’s trial. Without knowing the precise circumstances, some possibilities include reserving one or more rows for the public; dividing the jury venire panel to reduce courtroom congestion; or instructing prospective jurors not to engage or interact with audience members.”
As I had written previously in a column, two years after the Presley v. Georgia decision, Ventura County judges had not heard of this constitutional decision.
I was told by courtroom deputies in Ventura County that I couldn’t stay in the courtroom during a high-profile case because all the seats would be taken up by prospective jurors.
I told deputies about Presley v. Georgia decision as I walked out of the courtroom, and then, I wrote a column on the Ventura County Star newspaper’s Court Reporter’s blog.
After the column was published on the newspaper’s blog, Ventura judges started reserving rows of seating for the public during jury selection.
Joking, one Ventura County judge told me: “We now have to reserve seating for the public during jury trials because of you.”
I smiled and said, “No, I am not a Supreme Court justice. I am merely aware of my constitutional rights.”
(Judges and lawyers — not the deputies or bailiffs who aren’t attorneys — should be the ones who make sure the Supreme Court 2010 decision was followed and reserve a row or two of seats for the public during jury selection. But too many judges and prosecutors don’t bother to keep up with Supreme Court decisions involving constitutional rights of defendants.)
Don’t expect defense attorneys to educate judge and prosecutors if they toss out the public or media from the courtroom because there isn’t enough room for them.
A good defense would keep his mouth shut because a guilty conviction of a client with result in an appeal and a retrial when a criminal conviction is overturned. This means American taxpayers will pick up the tab of hundreds of thousands of dollars because judges and prosecutors don’t know the law.
The Post’s Reporter Doesn’t Ask Questions Based on Facts
Nowhere in the story is there any indication that any questions were asked to the judge or the prosecutor: Were you aware of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Presley v. Georgia opinion? Should a judge have allowed the public to sit in the court during jury selection?
A prosecutor — who should be knowledgeable of criminal constitutional law, especially cases like Presley v. Georgia — would have told the judge about the consequences of throwing Floyd’s mother, the media or members of the public out of the courtroom during jury selection.
What happens when this kind of irresponsible and sloppy reporting by the New York Post or other newspapers or television stations is published or aired, is that it feeds into the fear, misconceptions and often paranoia about the courts.
In this case, it probably fans racist and false arguments made on sites like StormFront that minorities get special treatment and are let off when they commit crimes on “technicalities” by liberal justices when nothing could be further from the truth.
What is also disturbing, the Appeals Court justices, who upheld the murder conviction before a higher court overturned it, apparently weren’t aware of the Presley v. Georgia case.
The New York Post should have been held accountable the judge who presided in Floyd’s trial and the prosecutor who tried the case. Again, both aren’t mentioned in the Post’s story.
But what is worse is that it appears other newspapers, including the New York Times, and New York TV stations, haven’t bother to do a followup on this story about why a NY judge and prosecutor aren’t familiar with four-year-old U.S. Supreme Court opinions on constitutional rights.
Also how often is this occurring in other courthouses throughout the nation?
Floyd will be in court in September.
And, according to the New York Post: “Floyd’s current defense attorney, Mario Romano, said they were mulling whether to accept a plea deal or go back to trial.”