Featuring: Ex-NBA Star Jayson Williams in: "The Limo Driver's Last Ride"

The New Jersey Court of Appeals will hear ex-NBA star Jayson Williams' appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment for manslaughter and related offenses. Williams contends that the prosecutor, in his presentation to the grand jury, made repeated improper references to Williams' exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights during the police's investigation of the shooting death of limousine driver Costas (Gus) Christofi on Valentine's Day 2002.

The prosecutor informed the grand jury that on the night of the shooting the police overheard Williams telling the other persons present to not say anything until Williams' attorney arrived. The prosecutor also stated that this attorney was later present at the scene when he advised Williams to refuse police interviews. The prosecutor elicited testimony from two grand jury witnesses that Williams had refused to respond to police questioning. Finally, a grand juror asked one of these witnesses if Williams had ever made a statement to the police, which the witness answered in the negative.

Williams, through his attorneys from the not-inexpensive Washington, D.C. firm Dyer, Ellis & Joseph, argues that since a defendant's exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights is inadmissible at trial and since the New Jersey Prosecutor's Handbook recommends that prosecutors not introduce inadmissible testimony regarding evidentiary privileges at grand jury proceedings, the superior court should enforce the prosecution's own rules and dismiss the indictment.

Williams cites in support of his argument State v. Carty, 753 A.2d 149 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000), aff'd, 790 A.2d 903 (N.J. 2002), where the court followed the terms of the state police handbook in holding that a state trooper did not have articulable suspicion before asking for consent to search a motor vehicle.

Williams also relies on State v. Grose, 387 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986), for the direct proposition that a prosecutor's repeated reference before a grand jury to a defendant's exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights is a sufficient ground to dismiss an indictment.

The prosecution has countered by asserting that Williams' statement imploring his guests to refuse to answer questions until his attorney arrived constituted admissible evidence to show that Williams was in control over the other witnesses or that he was attempting to influence them to withhold information or to provide false statements. The prosecution argues as well that the witness' response to the grand juror's question was proper because the grand jury had the right to know if the police had ever questioned Williams. Finally, the prosecution notes that the rule precluding references to a defendant's invocation of the Fifth Amendment does not apply to grand jury proceedings.

The parties will have oral argument before the court of appeals on March 12, 2003.