Threats overruled

Qns. judges drop ‘speak English’ bluffs to jurors

IT WAS JUST bad judgment.

Queens judges are no longer threatening jurors who speak limited English that they must take language lessons or regularly return to court until they are proficient.

Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, confirmed Wednesday that the threats — which were not actually enforced — are no longer being made by the four judges highlighted in a Daily News investigation.

“Judges are no longer suggesting jurors take English language courses or telling them they’re going to come back every year,” Chalfen said.

He added that a third practice, in which some judges told potential jurors they wouldn’t be paid for jury service if they were excused due to limited English, “stopped a long time ago.”

On Monday, The News exclusively reported that at least four judges in Queens had made the threats to jurors during 10 separate trials.

The threats featured prominently in six appeals stemming from those trials.

The appeals argued that the judges’ remarks had a chilling effect on jurors — deterring others who might have had limited English or other concerns from speaking up.

Court transcripts from those trials indicate that the judges doubted the credibility of some jurors — claiming they did not understand the proceedings.

Chalfen previously told The News that finding a jury posed a particular challenge in Queens, where over 135 languages are spoken.

One juror excused for limited English skills by Justice Joel Blumenfeld (photo) in May 2015 recalled the experience. Blumenfeld, who recently retired, told the juror, Ting Ting Fey, 37, that she had to return to court every year until she understood English well enough to serve her civic duty. “He said, I’m in college, (I am) supposed to know (English),” Fey recalled. “I feel sad. I know it’s not my language. He said it in front of other people. I felt a little bit embarrassed. He said, ‘Learn better English,’ or something like that. It was strange to walk out.” Appeals papers argued the judges had no authority to issue such orders. “What the court told those prospective jurors was simply not true. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Law, or other relevant rules and statutes, that a prospective juror who is excused for lack of English proficiency may be required to take a language course,” appellate attorney Lynn Fahey wrote.

The other three Queens justices highlighted by The News included Ira Margulis, Kenneth Holder and John Latella.

Latella repeatedly said during the March 2014 trial of Howard Freire for robbery that it be noted certain jurors “should take a course in English” so they “can serve when next called to serve as a juror,” a transcript showed.

In another case examined by The News, a lawyer moved for a mistrial in light of Holder’s warning — which made jurors scared “to even say they don’t understand the language.”

Holder denied the mistrial and concluded jurors were not fearful of speaking.

He said that prospective jurors who claimed they did not understand English “were faking,” according to appeals papers.