Churaman case continues in Queens court
/
Advocates rally on the Queens County Criminal Courthouse steps to call on Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz to drop charges against Prakash Churaman, who was charged with murder as a 15-year-old in 2014.
Eagle photo by Jacob Kaye
By Jacob Kaye
The re-trial of Prakash Churaman, a Queens resident who was arrested on murder charges when he was 15 years old, got one step closer to beginning Monday.
Churaman, now 22 years old, appeared in court for nearly the 95th time since he was arrested in connection with the murder of 21-year-old Taquane Clark in 2014.
Little is left to do before the case goes to re-trial – his original conviction was overturned in 2020 when it was ruled that the defense should have been allowed to call an expert witness to testify about false confessions made by children.
On Monday, Feb. 7, Andrea Medina, an assistant district attorney with the Queens District Attorney’s office told Queens Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Holder that prosecutors are waiting on one final cell phone record from the defense. Medina also told Holder that a forensic psychologist has been booked and is scheduled to complete an evaluation of Churaman around the first week of March.
Though it’s unclear when the trial will start, Churaman was ordered to return to court in-person on March 21.
“There's no definite date as to when justice shall be served for either parties in this matter,” Churaman told the Eagle. “I've been waiting for over seven years now for a fair trial.”
Monday’s hearing was far less contentious than previous proceedings.
In January, the prosecution and the defense, led by attorney Jose Nieves, traded barbs, accusing each other of purposely delaying the trial.
“The People answered ready for retrial last year in January of 2021 and we have been ready to move this case to trial for a full year; however, on each court date since that time the defendant has engaged in dilatory tactics to prevent this case from moving forward,” Medina said on Jan. 19, the previous hearing in the case.
Medina, during the January appearance, also told Holder that she wanted to make the judge “aware” of several rallies that took place prior to Churaman’s hearings on the steps of the Queens County Criminal Courthouse.
In November, a group of around 30 protesters gathered on the courthouse steps and called for Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz to drop the charges against Churaman. The advocates, as well as several lawmakers, cite Churaman’s own statement of innocence and a lack of DNA evidence tying him to the crime scene – the main piece of evidence against Churaman is the testimony of then-74-year-old Olive Legister who told police she heard his voice but did not see him.
During the November protests, the group of advocates and Churaman himself, walked across Queens Boulevard to one of the district attorney’s offices, where they continued to chant and, for a moment, blocked the front door. The protest ended without incident and the group walked back to the courthouse after about 10 minutes.
During the January court appearance, Nieves argued to Holder that preventing Churaman from speaking on the steps would be a violation of his First Amendment rights, an argument Holder rejected.
“It has nothing to do [with a] First Amendment issue, it's a liberty issue,” Holder said in January. “He is only out because of the consideration of this Court and I have made considerations for him in order to continue to have his case go forward. It doesn't allow him to be at rallies in support of what – he has enough people running around doing that from what I can see.”
“I haven't told him to shut up, I haven't put a gag order on this, I haven't put a gag order on you. I am considering it, but I haven't done it,” the judge said, adding that he was going to order the sheriff to put a “tight, tight reign on [Churaman’s] ankle bracelet.”
On Monday, many of the same protesters again called on Katz to drop the charges against Churaman and also derided the comments made by Holder during the previous appearance.
“The judge exercised his First Amendment rights in order to profess disdain at Prakash for using his First Amendment right,” said John McFarlane, a Queens resident and organizer with VOCAL-NY. “I’m not a lawyer or defense attorney, I don't profess to be one, I'm not an associate of the judiciary in any way, but I think it is a leap too far for one person to abridge the constitutional rights of another, for example, the First Amendment as a pre-trial mechanism to accomplish what is essentially a civil rights violation.”
Churaman did not attend the pre-hearing rally on Monday.
“A lot of folks have been reeling since the last hearing,” said Akash Singh, a communications representative with Desis Rising Up and Moving, a nonprofit that has organized around Churaman’s case.
Shahrin Azim, a gender justice organizer with DRUM, said the organization has championed Churaman’s case because of what they say it represents in the context of the larger conversations about criminal justice reform.
“I think, above all else, Prakash’s case is just one of many cases that criminalizes Black and brown youth, particularly from poor, low-income, working class backgrounds,” Azim said. “Working on Prakash’s case and talking about it with our members is starting conversations around [prison] abolition or even just thinking what can we, as a community, as a society, do to support someone instead of throwing them into prison where they're further traumatized.”
Churaman is accused of breaking into a Jamaica home to steal marijuana on Dec. 5, 2014. The robbery went wrong, and Clark, who lived in the home and whose younger brother was friends with Churaman, was fatally shot by one of the intruders.
Churaman was arrested for the crime after Legister told police that she heard Churaman’s voice when she was being held at gunpoint during the robbery.
Churaman has maintained his innocence ever since the arrest with the exception of one moment – while under interrogation after his arrest, Churaman admitted to being involved with the robbery to NYPD Detective Barry Brown. Churaman, who confessed to the crime without the presence of a lawyer, later would say he was coerced.
The confession was at the center of the overturned conviction. Appellate justices ruled in 2020 that Holder should have allowed an expert witness to testify about coerced confessions during the trial.
After the overturned conviction, the DA’s office offered Churaman a plea, which he turned down. Though he has been unable to provide the court with an alibi, there is no physical evidence tying Churaman to the scene beyond the earwitness testimony provided by Legister. After the conviction was overturned, Churaman was released and has been on home confinement with his mother since early 2021.
“I'm looking forward to [the trial], to get, in their words, a petit jury and to get this case to really get on,” Churaman said. “And for it to come to the verdict where it was supposed to come to the first time: not guilty.”
The Queens district attorney’s office declined to comment for this story.
