What do you think?
Incident at Howard Beach: The Case for Murder
Outlines the prosecution's successful manslaughter convictions for the white youths involved in the killing
305 pages, Hardcover
First published February 15, 1990
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 25, 2024
AN “INSIDE” ACCOUNT OF THE SHOCKING RACIAL DEATH AND TRIAL
Charles Joseph Hynes (1935-2019) was an American lawyer and Democratic politician from New York who served as Kings County District Attorney from 1990 to 2013.
He recounts the basic incident: on December 19, 1986 four young black men were driving through the all-white Howard Beach neighborhood in Queens when their car broke down. Three of them set out walking, and had an altercation with a dozen white teenagers, who beat two of the men, and one of them tried to escape, and was struck by a car, and died.
He recounts, “After Michael Griffith was chased to his death, a passing motorist … told police that he’d just seen a black man staggering down the Belt Parkway… and he want along with several [police] officers… Blood was dripping from [Cedric] Sandiford’s head as he tried to explain what had taken place… But he was pushed against a patrol car… bleeding and shivering in the December cold, he was frisked. The police began peppering him with questions about a completely different homicide that had taken place nearby. Not the death of Griffith, who was lying at their feet… And then Sandiford got angry, explaining to the officers that he was a victim of a crime, not a perpetrator… It’s doubtful they’d have behaved the same way if Sandiford had been white.” (Pg. 33-34)
He continues, “The Monday newspapers were also in, and Sandiford was quoted extensively… ‘In the South I heard of things like this happening… But I never thought it could happen in New York.’ He also complained that no witnesses had yet stepped forward. ‘Perhaps a half-dozen people saw us being attacked… I don’t see how those people could stand by and see a vicious act like this go on and not do anything.’ Sandiford had not, so far, publicly aired any complaints about the police. His mood may have been tempered by [Michael Griffith’s mother] Jean Griffith’s composure… [She said] ‘It still doesn’t sit in my mind what whites did to my son… But I don’t feel that whites are all the same.’ … ‘The truth will eventually come out,’ said Michael’s brother, Christopher… ‘No racist remarks are coming out of our family, which is great. We weren’t brought up like that.” (Pg. 46-47)
He notes, “No aspect of the Howard Beach case was a confusing as the conflicting accounts of the fatal collision on the highway… all that was known at this point was that [Dominick] Blum had indeed hit Griffith. Police had disproved Sandiford’s claim that Blum was part of the white mob. Yet Blum’s own account of the collision---he maintained his sleeping girlfriend never awoke when the ‘tire of small animal’ destroyed his Aspen---combined with the gentle treatment afforded him by the police (in contrast to the high-handed manner in which Sandiford was treated) to raise doubts among members of the black community.” (Pg. 60)
After Hynes was appointed the special state prosecutor for Howard Beach, he was advised, “every tough assignment I had taken on had resulted in some sort of triumph. More important, those successes were victories, in a say, of small groups of dedicated people over injustice. You can legislate against inequality, but laws don’t enforce themselves. People enforce laws, just as people break laws. The Incident at Howard Beach was proof enough of that.” (Pg. 108)
He recalls asking an associate, “Can we prove that their car broke down?... Why did they walk back to Howard Beach instead of going to the Cross Bay Boulevard Bridge, where they got the water from the toll booth collectors?...” His associate replied, “‘[T]his is the United States. They didn’t need a passport.’ He was, of course, right.” (Pg. 149)
He brought an attorney named Harvey in for a mock trial: “‘What were THEY… doing in Howard Beach?’ ‘Sylvester’s car broke down…’ ‘And how exactly are you going to prove that?’ …’Either Cedric or Timothy, or both…’ ‘With … your counterparts in Queens Boulevard implying all over the nightly news that your victims were in Howard Beach to peddle drugs, or tom commit mayhem, or whatever, that’s your ANSWER? … You’re going to have two stone junkies take the witness stand and explain that their car broke down in Howard Beach? Are you people nuts?” (Pg. 224)
During the trial, he mused to himself, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury… you might consider Riley a punk and Blum a confused young man. But ask yourselves what Grimes’s addiction or Michael Griffith’s cocaine use or Sandiford’s criminal record have to do with the event these witnesses are describing. The only thing these youths … knew was that Grimes, Griffith, and Sandiford were “n____s on the Boulevard.” … remember when you saw Bobby Riley that he was just … one of that gang, one of these four primly suited and neatly coiffed youngsters sitting like angels at the defense table, looking as if they were in line for altar-boy practice.” (Pg. 266-267)
Ultimately three of the four white teens on trial were found guilty of manslaughter in the second degree, and assault. Hynes concludes, “We hadn’t gotten the murder conviction, but what we had got was d__n good enough.” (Pg. 298)
This book will be of great interest to those studying this incident.
Charles Joseph Hynes (1935-2019) was an American lawyer and Democratic politician from New York who served as Kings County District Attorney from 1990 to 2013.
He recounts the basic incident: on December 19, 1986 four young black men were driving through the all-white Howard Beach neighborhood in Queens when their car broke down. Three of them set out walking, and had an altercation with a dozen white teenagers, who beat two of the men, and one of them tried to escape, and was struck by a car, and died.
He recounts, “After Michael Griffith was chased to his death, a passing motorist … told police that he’d just seen a black man staggering down the Belt Parkway… and he want along with several [police] officers… Blood was dripping from [Cedric] Sandiford’s head as he tried to explain what had taken place… But he was pushed against a patrol car… bleeding and shivering in the December cold, he was frisked. The police began peppering him with questions about a completely different homicide that had taken place nearby. Not the death of Griffith, who was lying at their feet… And then Sandiford got angry, explaining to the officers that he was a victim of a crime, not a perpetrator… It’s doubtful they’d have behaved the same way if Sandiford had been white.” (Pg. 33-34)
He continues, “The Monday newspapers were also in, and Sandiford was quoted extensively… ‘In the South I heard of things like this happening… But I never thought it could happen in New York.’ He also complained that no witnesses had yet stepped forward. ‘Perhaps a half-dozen people saw us being attacked… I don’t see how those people could stand by and see a vicious act like this go on and not do anything.’ Sandiford had not, so far, publicly aired any complaints about the police. His mood may have been tempered by [Michael Griffith’s mother] Jean Griffith’s composure… [She said] ‘It still doesn’t sit in my mind what whites did to my son… But I don’t feel that whites are all the same.’ … ‘The truth will eventually come out,’ said Michael’s brother, Christopher… ‘No racist remarks are coming out of our family, which is great. We weren’t brought up like that.” (Pg. 46-47)
He notes, “No aspect of the Howard Beach case was a confusing as the conflicting accounts of the fatal collision on the highway… all that was known at this point was that [Dominick] Blum had indeed hit Griffith. Police had disproved Sandiford’s claim that Blum was part of the white mob. Yet Blum’s own account of the collision---he maintained his sleeping girlfriend never awoke when the ‘tire of small animal’ destroyed his Aspen---combined with the gentle treatment afforded him by the police (in contrast to the high-handed manner in which Sandiford was treated) to raise doubts among members of the black community.” (Pg. 60)
After Hynes was appointed the special state prosecutor for Howard Beach, he was advised, “every tough assignment I had taken on had resulted in some sort of triumph. More important, those successes were victories, in a say, of small groups of dedicated people over injustice. You can legislate against inequality, but laws don’t enforce themselves. People enforce laws, just as people break laws. The Incident at Howard Beach was proof enough of that.” (Pg. 108)
He recalls asking an associate, “Can we prove that their car broke down?... Why did they walk back to Howard Beach instead of going to the Cross Bay Boulevard Bridge, where they got the water from the toll booth collectors?...” His associate replied, “‘[T]his is the United States. They didn’t need a passport.’ He was, of course, right.” (Pg. 149)
He brought an attorney named Harvey in for a mock trial: “‘What were THEY… doing in Howard Beach?’ ‘Sylvester’s car broke down…’ ‘And how exactly are you going to prove that?’ …’Either Cedric or Timothy, or both…’ ‘With … your counterparts in Queens Boulevard implying all over the nightly news that your victims were in Howard Beach to peddle drugs, or tom commit mayhem, or whatever, that’s your ANSWER? … You’re going to have two stone junkies take the witness stand and explain that their car broke down in Howard Beach? Are you people nuts?” (Pg. 224)
During the trial, he mused to himself, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury… you might consider Riley a punk and Blum a confused young man. But ask yourselves what Grimes’s addiction or Michael Griffith’s cocaine use or Sandiford’s criminal record have to do with the event these witnesses are describing. The only thing these youths … knew was that Grimes, Griffith, and Sandiford were “n____s on the Boulevard.” … remember when you saw Bobby Riley that he was just … one of that gang, one of these four primly suited and neatly coiffed youngsters sitting like angels at the defense table, looking as if they were in line for altar-boy practice.” (Pg. 266-267)
Ultimately three of the four white teens on trial were found guilty of manslaughter in the second degree, and assault. Hynes concludes, “We hadn’t gotten the murder conviction, but what we had got was d__n good enough.” (Pg. 298)
This book will be of great interest to those studying this incident.
December 26, 2025
In the 1980s in New York City there was a great deal of racial unrest, particularly between the black community and the white. There were a number of high publicity instances where it seemed, rightly or wrongly, that blacks were harmed or even killed by white people with little sense of justice. This book is about a terrible incident that happened in December 1986 in the enclave of Howard Beach in Queens. This book was written by the Special Prosecutor the then governor of New York, Mario Cuomo eventually appointed to investigate the case, and who was later elected District Attorney.
The short story was horrific: three black men, ostensibly seeking to buy a used car, had their car break down on the highway near virtually all white Howard Beach. While one man stayed with the car, two others hiked down the highway to get assistance and they stopped to get pizza. A bunch of white youth, who had come from a nearby underage party was enraged at seeing the blacks, and soon a quasi mob of the youth were beating on and chasing the blacks down the street. One of the blacks ran into moving traffic, was struck and killed, and the other was badly beaten.
While it seemed an open and shut case of racial violence, assault and potentially murder, the NYPD had a hard time with the investigation. Few locals in the all white community had sympathy for blacks at the time and didn't want to get involved and those that did were threatened. The youth all gave conflicting stories and some lawyered up. The two traumatized black men did not give perfect accounts of what had happened. Although the one black man had been killed after being hit with a car while being chased, no one said he had been pushed into the street and there were other places to run to.
While this seemed to be a racial crime, and there was no excuse for attacking the men, their story of going to a white neighborhood to look for a used car at night didn't ring true; drug tests showed they were cocaine users, and some had criminal records. Then black civil rights activists Rev. Al Sharpton and lawyer Alton Maddox got involved, frankly putting their personal civil rights political agendas ahead of the interests of their clients the victims in the case, even preventing them from speaking to investigators at a key point in the investigation.
NYC City Mayor Ed Koch who usually backed the police, had come under criticism for the increasing racial tension, and in fact that would become a factor in his looming re-election defeat. But in this case he expressed outrage which further befuddled the police investigation. Finally Governor Cuomo, who comes across very poorly in this book, belatedly acted to appoint a special prosecutor, the author.
To my view, anyone who believes in "Equal Justice Under Law" has to be opposed to "special prosecutors" because by definition, special prosecutors receive more support, funding and resources than normal investigators. Therefore, it is clear to any unbiased observer, that a crime investigated by a special prosecutor and the same crime investigated normally, are not investigated or prosecuted "equally" and that comes across well in this book as the author details the large staff, funding, exhaustive investigation, trial preparation and support throughout his prosecution.
In the end, after a long trial, he successfully prosecutes 3 of the teenagers for manslaughter, 1 is acquitted and few others face minor penalties largely community service.
This is an important book any student of New York City in the 1980s or anyone interested in black/ white racial crimes will benefit from reading, but a careful reading and consideration raises even larger issues than just racial hatred and violence: is the concept of the "special prosecutor" itself just, fair and equal; how do you address civil rights crusaders who put their personal political agendas ahead of cooperation in criminal investigations and even securing justice for the victims they portend to represent?
The short story was horrific: three black men, ostensibly seeking to buy a used car, had their car break down on the highway near virtually all white Howard Beach. While one man stayed with the car, two others hiked down the highway to get assistance and they stopped to get pizza. A bunch of white youth, who had come from a nearby underage party was enraged at seeing the blacks, and soon a quasi mob of the youth were beating on and chasing the blacks down the street. One of the blacks ran into moving traffic, was struck and killed, and the other was badly beaten.
While it seemed an open and shut case of racial violence, assault and potentially murder, the NYPD had a hard time with the investigation. Few locals in the all white community had sympathy for blacks at the time and didn't want to get involved and those that did were threatened. The youth all gave conflicting stories and some lawyered up. The two traumatized black men did not give perfect accounts of what had happened. Although the one black man had been killed after being hit with a car while being chased, no one said he had been pushed into the street and there were other places to run to.
While this seemed to be a racial crime, and there was no excuse for attacking the men, their story of going to a white neighborhood to look for a used car at night didn't ring true; drug tests showed they were cocaine users, and some had criminal records. Then black civil rights activists Rev. Al Sharpton and lawyer Alton Maddox got involved, frankly putting their personal civil rights political agendas ahead of the interests of their clients the victims in the case, even preventing them from speaking to investigators at a key point in the investigation.
NYC City Mayor Ed Koch who usually backed the police, had come under criticism for the increasing racial tension, and in fact that would become a factor in his looming re-election defeat. But in this case he expressed outrage which further befuddled the police investigation. Finally Governor Cuomo, who comes across very poorly in this book, belatedly acted to appoint a special prosecutor, the author.
To my view, anyone who believes in "Equal Justice Under Law" has to be opposed to "special prosecutors" because by definition, special prosecutors receive more support, funding and resources than normal investigators. Therefore, it is clear to any unbiased observer, that a crime investigated by a special prosecutor and the same crime investigated normally, are not investigated or prosecuted "equally" and that comes across well in this book as the author details the large staff, funding, exhaustive investigation, trial preparation and support throughout his prosecution.
In the end, after a long trial, he successfully prosecutes 3 of the teenagers for manslaughter, 1 is acquitted and few others face minor penalties largely community service.
This is an important book any student of New York City in the 1980s or anyone interested in black/ white racial crimes will benefit from reading, but a careful reading and consideration raises even larger issues than just racial hatred and violence: is the concept of the "special prosecutor" itself just, fair and equal; how do you address civil rights crusaders who put their personal political agendas ahead of cooperation in criminal investigations and even securing justice for the victims they portend to represent?
January 13, 2018
Good start, kind of a lag in the middle, and the trial part is great. A good insight to the trial process. Cool read for true crime.
December 30, 2023
A little too heavy on the crusading prosecutors versus bumbling cops.
July 28, 2011
After a recent incident in Patchogue, NY, I thought that revisiting this 1986 incident, and the year-long case that followed, might be useful as historical perspective. Hynes's and Drury's book is a faithful chronicle and a reminder that things have not have progressed as far as many of us would like.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews