September 6, 2008
Judge to hold juror-misconduct hearing in limo crash case
The jurors who convicted Martin Heidgen of murder for driving drunk on the wrong side of the Meadowbrook Parkway will be called back to court next week to testify about their deliberations, a judge ruled Monday.
Acting State Supreme Court Justice Alan Honorof will allow lawyers on both sides of the case to ask jurors whether they discussed Heidgen's prior criminal record during their five-day deliberations -- a subject that should have been off limits.
Three months ago, Heidgen's lawyer, Stephen LaMagna of Garden City, asked Honorof to throw out the verdict based on jury misconduct. He said jurors broke several rules during their deliberations, including discussing the case with their families, weighing Heidgen's prison sentence and, in one case, making plans to write a book.
But Honorof said he will limit the Feb. 13 hearing to the one issue. The Nassau district attorney's office had already consented to a hearing on what jurors knew about Heidgen's record, and it said in a statement it is confident the verdict will stand.
LaMagna said in court papers that one juror told the others that Heidgen had a prior drunken driving conviction. In fact, Heidgen had been arrested for drunken driving, but those charges were dismissed later.
Heidgen, 25, of Valley Stream, was convicted of second-degree murder for smashing into a limousine in July 2005 as it returned from a wedding in Bayville. Killed in the crash were the driver, Stanley Rabinowitz, 59, of Farmingdale, and Katie Flynn, 7, of Long Beach, who had been a flower girl in her aunt's wedding.
LaMagna did not respond to requests for comment Monday.
Keith Rabinowitz, Stanley's son, said he understands the judge's need to make sure the verdict is sound, but he had hoped that Heidgen would be sentenced by now.
"I'm annoyed that the whole process takes so long," he said.
Jurors said they felt the same way. Juror Michael DeRita said he never thought he'd still be discussing the Heidgen trial. But he said he's happy to come back for another hearing if it will give people in the case some peace of mind about the verdict.
"I think they should do it for the sake of both sides," he said.
Legal experts said at the hearing that lawyers for both sides will be able to call jurors as witnesses, and question them about their deliberations.
The jurors will also be cross-examined, experts said. The judge will make a decision on whether there was misconduct and whether it was serious enough to throw out the verdict.
James Acker, a criminal law professor at University at Albany, said it's rare that a judge is moved to question a jury's decision-making process, but said the allegations here are serious.
"That's exactly why a judge would want to have a hearing," he said.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
Popular stories
- Trojans blanks Saints in girls tennis
- Florida's forgotten storm: The Hurricane of 1928
- Homecoming king
- Running in circles
- Obama, McCain Agree to Three Debates
- Palin & Hillary are opposites
- Retirement in Williamsburg
- Foreign students often exploited
- Swimmer Ryan Lochte sets sights on beating friend and rival, Michael Phelps
- Pennsylvania
- Pat Bell
- Tourism and Leisure
- Religious Leaders
- Tribune Co.
