Tay Defendant Claims Jury Bias in Bid to Quash Charges

Citing alleged discrimination in the selection of Orange County Grand Jury members, a defense attorney filed court documents Friday seeking to overturn an indictment handed down in the Stuart A. Tay murder case.

Attorney Marshall M. Schulman is further asking that Orange County’s entire judicial bench excuse itself from ruling on the motion to quash the indictment, since judges take part in the process that leads to the selection of the 30-member grand jury panel.

Three of the four teen-agers facing murder charges in last New Year’s Eve’s slaying of Tay--including Schulman’s client, 18-year-old Robert Chan--are Asian-American. They are accused of beating to death the 17-year-old and burying his body in a shallow grave in the back yard of a Buena Park home.

There have been no Asian-Americans on the grand jury since the 1988-89 panel through to the 1992-93 panel, which handed down the indictments in the Tay case, according to Schulman’s motion.

“The defendants contend that the method for selecting the Orange County Grand Jury . . . results in the systematic exclusion of (Asian-American) grand jurors,” the motion charges.

Orange County court officials defend the current selection process as fair and deny claims that the system purposely excludes minorities. Court officials point out the difficulty in finding volunteers willing to dedicate a year’s service to the panel, which often meets up to five days a week.

Fellow defense attorneys in the Tay slaying case have yet to decide on whether they will join in the motion, although it appears likely, court officials said. Schulman’s motion was also filed on behalf of another Asian-American client indicted in an unrelated insurance fraud case.

Even if indictments are dismissed in the Tay case, prosecutors can refile charges against the four defendants. Prosecutors originally sought grand jury indictments to avoid a lengthy preliminary hearing process.

The Orange County Grand Jury has come under heated attacks since issuing a report in June that called for a nationwide ban on immigration and linked illegal immigration to a wide array of societal ills. Latino-rights advocates criticized the report as racist, but also alleged the panel overstepped its jurisdiction.

Further complaints focused on the lack of minority representation on the grand jury, a body that generally acts as a governmental watchdog but increasingly oversees criminal cases. Latino-rights advocates filed a wide-ranging complaint with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that also included gripes about the grand jury’s report.