Judge Hears Case Over Release of Garner Grand Jury Materials

A judge on Staten Island on Thursday weighed arguments for the release of evidence, testimony and instructions presented to the grand jury whose decision in December not to charge a police officer in the chokehold death of Eric Garner touched off weeks of protests.

While the arguments were grounded in the law of criminal procedure, the three-hour hearing in a packed courtroom ranged far beyond the legal particulars of the case, touching on the grand jury reforms proposed recently by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and the debate around race and policing that has played out around the country in recent months.

Outside the courthouse, blocks from the sidewalk where Mr. Garner’s fatal encounter unfolded, several protesters gathered with signs calling for justice and labeling the district attorney, Daniel M. Donovan Jr., a “chicken” for fighting against the release of the grand jury materials.

Inside the courthouse, in front of Justice William E. Garnett of State Supreme Court, arguments for public disclosure were lodged by five parties: the New York Civil Liberties Union; the Legal Aid Society; the city’s public advocate, Letitia James; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; and The New York Post.

The grand jury’s decision not to indict the officer who applied the chokehold, Daniel Pantaleo, set off demonstrations in New York City and around the country and galvanized discussion of grand jury changes and other policing reforms.

The question before the court turns on the narrow issue of when — and to whom — grand jury materials should be publicly disclosed. State law strictly protects their secrecy but does provide for exceptions.

Mr. Donovan, after initially requesting that some limited information about the Garner grand jury be made public, is now arguing against releasing a larger body of information, including transcripts of witness testimony. He did not appear in court on Thursday; an assistant district attorney, Anne Grady, argued for the office.

In their legal filings and in court on Thursday, the parties seeking the release of the materials said that the process around Mr. Garner’s death provided a compelling example of the kind of case where transparency is necessary, in this case to bolster public trust in the criminal justice system.

Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, a lawyer representing Ms. James, said that by seeking the release of some grand jury information immediately after the Garner decision, the district attorney had ceded the point.

Justice Garnett, who said he had not read the grand jury transcripts himself, asked what each party would do with the documents if released.

Would the public advocate seek new laws or reform? Would reporters from The Post publish articles based on the testimony?

“That’s what we do,” the newspaper’s lawyer, Alison B. Schary, replied. “The entire minutes will not be published because we don’t have that much paper.”

Ms. Grady countered that it was exactly that sort of public airing and “Monday morning quarterbacking” that prosecutors sought to avoid. She compared their situation to that of reporters protecting confidential sources.

“It will do maximum damage” to prosecutors’ ability to extract sensitive testimony from witnesses, she said.

“We all know the adage: Snitches get stitches,” she said.

For police-related deaths, district attorneys often impanel special grand juries that can meet for weeks or months. But grand jury hearings in most felonies are swift and elemental.

Both sorts of grand juries do their work behind closed doors and under the control of prosecutors who dictate the pace, the witnesses and the order in which they appear.

James Meyerson, the lawyer for the N.A.A.C.P., said that in fatal police encounters, the grand jury proceeding, while appearing to fulfill a public desire for an independent review, can serve instead to inoculate prosecutors from issuing final decisions in often politically combustible incidents.

In court papers, Mr. Donovan, a Republican who is running for a vacant seat in Congress, also appealed to the integrity of the system in opposing the release of the materials, saying it would create a “chilling effect” on witnesses.

But at a State Senate hearing on Wednesday, he appeared to be more amenable to discussing the grand jury’s work. “I certainly would love the opportunity to tell the public more about the process that my office participated in,” he said.

Mr. Garner, an unarmed black man, was killed in July in an encounter with plainclothes officers who tried to arrest him because he was suspected of selling loose cigarettes on the street.

After the grand jury returned “no true bill,” Mr. Donovan requested that some information be released.

The judge initially overseeing the matter, Justice Stephen J. Rooney, permitted limited disclosures, among them that the grand jury had heard from 50 witnesses. He later recused himself, citing a potential conflict of interest involving his wife, a board chairwoman of the hospital whose medical workers treated Mr. Garner.

It was not immediately clear when Justice Garnett would rule.