The People of the State of New York v. Rahseem D., Defendant. (2025)

Defendant's omnibus motion is decided as follows:

The motion for the court to inspect the grand jury minutes is granted. The motion to dismiss or reduce the charges for defects in the proceedings is also granted. Criminal Procedure Law Section 210.35[5] provides that a motion to dismiss an indictment on the grounds that it is defective is meritorious when the integrity of the Grand Jury proceeding "is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result." The Court of Appeals has explained that the purpose of the Grand Jury in New York is to perform "the essential function of investigating criminal activity to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to accuse a citizen of a crime" (People v. Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 406 [1996]). "As legal advisor to the Grand Jury, the prosecutor performs dual functions: that of public officer and that of advocate. . . . With this potent authority, moreover, comes responsibility, including the 'prosecutor's duty of fair dealing' " (id. [quoting People v. Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97, 104 [1984]]). To be sure, the Court of Appeals has described dismissal of an indictment upon grounds of procedural defects as "an exceptional remedy" (Huston, 88 NY2d at 409). Dismissal of indictments on these grounds "should thus be limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the Grand Jury" (id.).

On July 24, 2025, the People began their presentation to the Grand Jury by wishing the jurors a good morning, introducing themselves, and providing the name of the case. They then proceeded as thus: "This is a case where two shooters each shot one individual in the West Village following this year's Pride Parade. I expect you will hear evidence that Angel A[.] fired multiple shots striking a female in the leg. Mr. Rahseem D[.] also fired multiple shots striking Angel A[.] in the head" (July 24, 2025 Tr at 2). At this time in the presentation, no witnesses had been called, no testimony had been taken, no evidence introduced. These errors—marshaling the evidence before any evidence was submitted to the Grand Jury, introducing an unnecessary and possibly inflammatory fact such as the alleged crime's occurrence in an upscale neighborhood following a beloved cultural event, which draws tens of thousands of people to the area, the discrepancy between suggesting that the Grand Jury will hear evidence supporting the victim's firing of her weapon but stating in a conclusory manner that the defendant fired his and shot his victim in the head—may not themselves have been enough to warrant dismissal had they not been compounded by the People's subsequent actions in presenting this case (see Huston, 88 NY2d at 409 ["Certainly, not every improper comment, elicitation of inadmissible testimony, impermissible question or mere mistake renders an indictment defective."]).

Following the People's introduction on July 24, they called a single witness to testify: Brendan M.,¹ a teacher and dean at the Staten Island high school where the defendant was enrolled. This witness was not present at the scene of the alleged crime. He did not witness any criminal activity in this case. Instead, he appears to have been called as a Coleman witness (see People v. Coleman, 78 AD3d 457, 457-58 [1st Dept 2010]). "A lay witness may offer an opinion about the identity of a person captured in a photograph or videotape to aid the jury in cases where the witness is more likely to correctly identify the person than is the jury" (id. at 458 [internal quotations omitted]). The People showed this witness three photographic stills taken from video surveillance footage from inside a subway car where the defendant allegedly fled after the charged shooting.² The witness testified that he served as an academic advisor to the defendant for the past two years, during which time he saw the defendant "about one to three times a week" (July 24, 2025 Tr at 5). The People directed the witness to identify and, with a marker, circle the defendant on all three pictures (id. at 6-7). The People then excused this witness and told the Grand Jury they would be ending their initial presentation at that time. (id. at 7). The People told the jurors that they would continue the case either later that afternoon or the next day under a code word chosen by the Grand Jurors (id. at 8). The code word chosen by the Grand Jurors was: "Parade" (id.). Again, no evidence had been presented to the Grand Jury about the alleged crimes occurring during or immediately following the Pride Parade. The only reason the jurors knew that information is because the prosecutor told them, unsupported by any testimony or evidence.

For the purposes of this opinion, it is crucial to understand why the People's repeated reference to the parade would likely have had an inflammatory effect. The New York City Pride Parade has been held for fifty-five years in the West Village neighborhood of New York County (NYC Pride, https://www.nycpride.org/about-pride/our-history/ [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]). In 1969, police raided The Stonewall Inn, a West Village bar that was a prominent social hangout among members of the city's LGBTQ community (id.). In response to this raid, community members fought back against the police, an event that became known as "The Stonewall Riots" (id.). The Stonewall Riots were "a milestone for gay and lesbian civil rights that provided momentum for a movement" demanding equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation (Stonewall National Monument, https://www.nps.gov/ston/learn/historyculture.htm/ [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]). This milestone also enshrined the West Village as a mecca for the LGBTQ rights movement and, in 2016, President Barack Obama designated "the Stonewall Inn, Christopher Park, and portions of the surrounding neighborhood" a national monument to be administered by the National Park Service (Stonewall National Monument, https://www.nps.gov/ston/learn/historyculture/upload/STON_Foundation-Document.pdf [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]). "The New York march is the largest of its kind in the United States, with 75,000 participants and roughly two million spectators, according to organizers. It is also broadcast on network television" (Liam Stack, With Defiance and Joy, Marching to Celebrate L.G.B.T.Q. Pride, NY Times, June 30, 2025, § A at 20). Considering these facts, it is unsurprising that the shooting at the center of this case drew significant local, national, and even international media attention.³ Indeed, the record indicates that the People were aware of the significant press attention this case had received as they gave the Grand Jury their standard instruction regarding press cases at the very end of their charge to the jurors, prior to the vote on the pending charges (July 25, 2025 Tr at 83-84). Importantly, the New York County District Attorney's Office's standard press case charge instructs the jury to "not consider any information you may receive from the media, Internet, or any other source outside the grand jury chamber" (id. at 83 [emphasis added]). The charge does not instruct the jurors to ignore the presenting prosecutor's words to them during the presentation. Therefore, the Court does not find that the District Attorney's standard press charge saved the integrity of the grand jury proceedings and the indictment that resulted in this case.

On the morning of July 25, 2025, the People continued their presentation. The presenting prosecutor reintroduced themselves and the name of the case (July 25, 2025 Tr at 10). The prosecutor then asked, "By a show of hands — I was here yesterday. The code word you selected was Parade. Who remembers the testimony from yesterday? I think I'm seeing every hand in the room, well over 12" (id.). The presenting prosecutor introduced two colleagues who were also present in the chamber and then, once again, marshaled evidence that had not been put before the Grand Jury, "As a reminder, this is a case where two shooters each shot one individual in the West Village following this year's Pride Parade" (id.). The "reminder" the presenting prosecutor gave the jurors at this moment was not a reminder of any evidence or testimony, but only of how the prosecutor chose to summarize the case wholly unsupported by any evidence before the Grand Jury.

The People would go on to call six additional witnesses and present a strong and substantive case. Typically, the eventual presentation of such a case would sufficiently safeguard an indictment from dismissal despite the presence of isolated instances of misconduct during the presentation (see People v. Thompson, 22 NY3d 687, 699 [2014]). However, this Court is not satisfied that it is possible to "unring the bell" that the People rang multiple times during the outset of their presentation. The Court is particularly concerned regarding the People's repeated factual colloquies regarding the Pride Parade because of the lack of a connection between that inflammatory fact and the testimony ultimately put before the jury. A review of the entirety of the Grand Jury minutes returns only two mentions of the Pride Parade during witness testimony. During the testimony of New York Police Department ("NYPD") Detective Michael Collarini, the presenting prosecutor asked the following questions:

PROSECUTOR: Were you assigned to investigate a shooting that occurred on June 29, 2025, at the corner of Barrow Street and West 4th Street at approximately 10:12 p.m. in the County and State of New York?

COLLARINI: Yes.

PROSECUTOR: And what event was happening in that area earlier that day?

COLLARINI: It was the Pride Parade.

PROSECUTOR: At 10:12 at night, was the parade still ongoing or was the parade finished?

COLLARINI: It was already finished.

PROSECUTOR: Can you describe the crowd situation at about that time?

COLLARINI: Very large crowds hanging out, everyone in the streets, sidewalk, it was very packed.

(July 25, 2025 Tr at 20-21). During the testimony of NYPD Officer Ali El Mermouti, the following exchange occurred:

PROSECUTOR: Did you respond to the scene of a shooting that occurred on June 29, 2025, at the corner of Barrow Street and West 4th Street, at about 10:12 p.m. in the County and State of New York?

EL MERMOUTI: Yes, I did.

PROSECUTOR: And what was occurring on June 29th of 2025?

EL MERMOUTI: So, I was just working patrol.

PROSECUTOR: Sorry. What was occurring on that day, was anything happening that day?

EL MERMOUTI: It was the pride event.

(id. at 36-37). Those are the only two references—other than the People's factual colloquies and the grand jury foreperson's choice of the codeword "Parade"—to the Pride Parade in the entire 86-page evidentiary record before the Grand Jury in this case. That fact undermines any assertion that the Pride Parade was central to the People's presentation. The People did not—and still do not—allege that this shooting was motivated by homophobic animus. Still, by focusing on the happenstance that the shooting occurred in the West Village after the Pride Parade had occurred earlier that day, the People—whether intentionally or not—essentially "stacked the deck" against the defendant. The People impaired the integrity of the proceedings and rendered the Grand Jury presentation a meaningless farce. That the People decided to focus on this rather peripheral fact that the shooting occurred in the same neighborhood and on the same day as the Pride Parade is particularly bewildering considering the strong evidence the People had in their possession.

In order to justify the serious sanction of dismissal, the law does not require that the defendant show that he suffered actual prejudice (see Huston, 88 NY2d at 409). Rather, the requisite burden supporting dismissal is only "that prejudice to the defendant may result" (id. [citing CPL § 210.35[5]). Here, the defendant has met that burden. The People's repeated marshaling of the evidence—unrequested by the Grand Jury— before any such evidence was introduced is sufficiently troubling, but the record before this Court makes a finding of potential prejudice relatively easy based upon the code word the Jury chose to help them remember this case: parade. Not only was this code word introduced to the Grand Jury by the presenting prosecutor before any such evidence that the alleged shooting occurred at the Pride Parade was elicited, but its choice reflects precisely what so greatly concerned this Court when reviewing how the People presented this case. At the end of their initial presentation, the People asked the Grand Jurors: "So, obviously I will come back with additional evidence. I will be back tomorrow. There's a chance I may be back this afternoon. Is there a code word that will help you remember this case?" (July 24, 2025 Tr at 8). Had the People's opening colloquy not distracted the jurors from their charge to consider only the evidence before them, an expected code word would be based upon the evidence they had actually heard during the presentation. Perhaps the jurors would have chosen "football coach," or "subway identification." Had such a code been chosen, this Court may have been inclined to forgive the People's transgression and find the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings intact. But, the jurors chose the word: "Parade." A word completely unrelated to the evidence they had heard. A word that had solely been introduced by the People during their improper introductory colloquy.

The People are free to present their case as they see fit, within the bounds of the law. Certainly, the Court is aware of the stressors and challenges of successfully obtaining a true bill on a violent felony by the 180.80 day (see CPL § 180.80), especially on a case receiving so much media attention. If anything, the significant media attention surrounding such a shocking violent crime required more care in the Grand Jury proceedings than the People provided here. In this Court's many years of preparing, giving, and reviewing Grand Jury presentations, this Court cannot recall a single other presentation where a prosecutor thought it fit to provide a factual colloquy of the case prior to the introduction of any evidence. This Court cannot condone the decision to do so here. Every shooting in this county is a horrific tragedy. And yet, the Court is not so naïve as to ignore the possibility that a shooting in the West Village on the day of the Pride Parade may particularly effect the emotions of Manhattan jurors who have every reason to believe that the West Village will be safe and celebratory on that day. The risk that such unnecessary information would be the focus of the jury is far too great.

This Court has no reason to believe that the People acted in bad faith or with intention to undermine the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings in this case. But, the law does not require such a finding. What the law requires is that this Court dismiss indictments where the integrity of the grand jury proceeding has been "impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result" (CPL § 210.35[5]). This Court finds that, as a result of the prosecutor's repeated commentary prior to the introduction of evidence, "the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings was substantially undermined" (Huston, 88 NY2d at 409). Therefore, dismissal of the indictment is warranted.

The Court grants the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to C.P.L. § 210.35[5]. As the indictment is dismissed on these grounds, the Court does not reach the defendant's other motions contained in his omnibus filing. The People's oral application for leave to represent this case to a new Grand Jury is granted pursuant to C.P.L. § 210.20[4]. The defendant is ordered held for the action of a new Grand Jury for a period of forty-five days from the date of this Order, and the People are so-ordered to inform the Court forthwith should they decide not to represent this case to the Grand Jury (CPL § 210.45[9]). The foregoing constitutes the decision and Order of the court.

Dated: November 13, 2025

New York, New York

Rachel S. Pauley

J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Due to the seriousness of the criminal allegations herein, the names of civilian witnesses have been anonymized for the purpose of this decision.

2.   Neither the photographic stills nor the underlying video surveillance footage were entered into evidence at this time. The stills were offered subject to connection, which was properly established through the testimony of the People's final witness on the second day of their presentation, New York County District Attorney's Office Investigative Analyst Matthew M. (July 25, 2025 Tr at 70-71, 79). The underlying surveillance footage was entered into evidence through the People's first witness on the second day of testimony, New York City Transit Special Inspector Jean Bedard (id. at 18-19).

3.   A quick internet search returns a plethora of media accounts of the shooting at the center of this case (see Chelsia Rose Marcius & Maria Cramer, After the Pride March, the Streets Near Stonewall Erupted With Gunfire, NY Times, June 29, 2025, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/29/nyregion/stonewall-inn-pride-shooting-nyc.html [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]; Joe Marino, Larry Celona & Amanda Woods, Innocent Teen Wounded in Shooting Near Stonewall After NYC Pride—While Girl Who Shot Her Accidentally Takes Bullet, Too: Sources, NY Post, June 30, 2025, available at https://nypost.com/2025/06/30/us-news/innocent-teen-wounded-in-shooting-near-stonewall-after-pride/ [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]; Leah Sarnoff, Teen Girls Shot Outside Historic Stonewall Inn After NYC's Pride March, ABC News, June 30, 2025, available at https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-historic-stonewall-inn-after-nycs-pride-march/story?id=123329468/ [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]; Saman Shafiq, Teenage Girl Critical After Shooting Occurs Near New York City's Historic Stonewall Inn, USA Today, June 30, 2025, available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/06/30/shooting-near-nyc-historic-stonewall-inn/84416106007/ [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]; Derick Waller & Christina Fan, 2 Wounded in Shooting After NYC Pride March Celebration in Greenwich Village, Police Say, CBS News, June 30, 2025, available at https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/greenwich-village-gun-violence-nyc-pride-march-nypd/ [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]);see alsoBradford Betz, 2 Teens Shot Near NYC's Stonewall Inn After Pride March: Police, Fox News, June 30, 2025, available at https://www.foxnews.com/us/2-teens-shot-near-nycs-stonewall-inn-after-pride-march-police/ [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]; Rachel Clun, Two Shot Near Historic Stonewall Inn After New York Pride March, The Independent, June 30, 2025, available at https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/new-york-pride-march-shooting-new-york-b2779445.html [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]; Joe Kottke & Marc Santia, 2 Teens Shot Near Stonewall Inn After NYC Pride March, Police Say, NBC News, June 30, 2025, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2-teens-shot-stonewall-inn-nyc-pride-march-police-say-rcna215881 [last accessed Nov. 13, 2025]).

Rachel S. Pauley, J.