People v. Chestnut, 26 N.Y.2d 481 (1970)

To successfully challenge a jury’s composition based on underrepresentation of a minority group, a defendant must prove intentional and systematic exclusion, not merely demonstrate a statistical disparity.

Summary

Six defendants were convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury after being granted immunity. They challenged the convictions, arguing that the grand jury was unlawfully constituted due to the underrepresentation of minority groups. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that a statistical disparity in jury representation is insufficient to prove a constitutional violation without evidence of intentional and systematic discrimination in the jury selection process. The court emphasized that the state does not have an affirmative duty to ensure proportional representation on juries, absent discriminatory intent.

Facts

The defendants were called as witnesses before a New York County Grand Jury investigating riots. The Grand Jury granted them immunity. The defendants refused to answer questions, even after being directed to do so by the foreman. The Grand Jury directed the District Attorney to file informations against each defendant for criminal contempt.

Procedural History

The defendants sought to remove the case to the U.S. District Court, claiming racial discrimination in jury selection, but the court lacked jurisdiction. They then applied to the New York Supreme Court to revoke approval of the Grand Jury’s directive. After a hearing, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The defendants were convicted in the Criminal Court, and the Appellate Term affirmed the convictions. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a statistical disparity in the representation of minority groups on a grand jury, without evidence of intentional discrimination, violates a defendant’s constitutional rights?
2. Whether the state has an affirmative duty to ensure that juries are composed of a cross-section of the community, regardless of discriminatory intent in the jury selection process?
3. Whether multiple contempt charges were appropriate when the defendants made it clear from the outset that they would not answer any questions?

Holding

1. No, because intentional and systematic discrimination must be proven, and a showing of mathematical disparity alone is insufficient.
2. No, because the Constitution does not mandate a compulsory system to ensure proportional representation of minority groups on grand jury panels if there is no proof of intentional exclusion.
3. No, because the defendants’ refusal to answer questions about a particular subject constituted a single act of contempt.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on precedent, stating that intentional and systematic discrimination must be proven to sustain a claim of an illegally constituted jury. A mere showing of mathematical disparity is insufficient. The court distinguished Supreme Court cases, noting that while statistical disparity can be evidence of purposeful discrimination, it is not grounds, in itself, for concluding a jury is impermissibly constituted.

The court noted the absence of evidence indicating a policy of purposeful exclusion of minority groups. The underrepresentation of minority groups on grand juries was attributed to their reluctance to volunteer for jury duty, which does not establish unconstitutional discrimination. The court found the County Clerk’s office tried diligently to fulfill their statutory duty to select grand jurors who are “intelligent; of sound mind and good character [and] well informed.”

The court also addressed the multiple counts of contempt, citing People v. Riela, holding that a witness’s refusal to answer questions about a particular subject constitutes a single act of contempt, regardless of the number of questions asked. The court modified the judgments to reflect a single count of contempt for each defendant (except Shallit, who only had one count to begin with).