The trials of the New York State Senate

by Thomas Dollar

2009 has not been a good year for the dignity of the New York State Senate. Former Republican Majority Leader Joe Bruno was indicted last January on Federal corruption charges. His trial, which began last week, threatens to undermine the culture of kickbacks and opacity that has long been a tradition in Albany. Last summer, the Senate stopped doing business altogether, after two dissident Democrats switched to caucusing with the Republicans. (They later switched back, giving the Dems a 32-30 majority.) After much foot-dragging and excuse-making, the Senate will also take up marriage equality tomorrow. (If you’re a New Yorker, call your Senator and urge him or her to vote yes. And yes means yes in New York—there will be no “people’s veto” like in Maine.)

But, despite the importance of same-sex marriage, Joe Bruno, and actually doing your job, the Senate’s most important trial may be what it does with Hiram Monserrate. Senator Monserrate, a Democrat, was elected last November from a working-class district in Queens. Shortly thereafter, he was arrested on felony assault charges for slashing his companion, Karla Giraldo, with a glass shard. Videotape evidence showed Mr. Monserrate violently pulling a bleeding Ms. Giraldo across the lobby of their apartment building. A felony conviction would have automatically expelled Monserrate from the Senate.

But an open-and-shut case became more complicated. Ms. Giraldo changed her story to match Mr. Monserrate’s, claiming that she had accidentally tripped and fallen into the glass. Monserrate’s lawyers waived his right to a jury trial, instead choosing to have Judge William Erlbaum reach a verdict. (The logic being that a jury would be so swayed by the horrific videotape that it would not consider anything else.) The gambit paid of: last month Judge Erlbaum acquitted Monserrate of all felony charges. Monserrate was convicted of one misdemeanor count of “recklessly causing physical injury” to Ms. Giraldo—the only charge that was directly demonstrated by the videotape. He will be sentenced on December 4^th to anywhere from probation to a year in prison.

The Monserrate case provides a number of teachable moments, highlighting the difficulty of proving domestic violence charges (especially when “he said/she said” is the same thing), and showing the differences between judge and jury trials. More immediately, it forces the State Senate to deal with Hiram Monserrate. Though he was not automatically removed from office, the leadership has already convened a committee to consider expelling him. An expulsion requires a simple majority vote, and a special election would be held to fill the vacant seat. Some Democrats may be reluctant to expel Monserrate, though, since losing him means that their majority drops down to 31-30 (at least until the seat is filled). Sen. Rubén Díaz of the Bronx has claimed that Monserrate is the victim of anti-Latino bias. (Not a terribly convincing argument, especially since Karla Giraldo is herself Latina.)

But pressure to expel Monserrate appears to be building, even in the notoriously clubby New York State Senate. Democratic Sen. Liz Krueger explained that “There are misdemeanors like jaywalking or showing up at a protest of a political action and there are crimes of violence against human beings, and I just don’t see them as the same…Domestic violence is a scourge on our society, and an issue which I believe requires us to speak out…Therefore, I believe Hiram Monserrate should not remain in the Senate.”

Senator Krueger is right: the New York State Senate must take a stand against domestic violence and expel Hiram Monserrate.