The 2016-2017 term of the New York Court of Appeals in criminal law was a relatively quiet one in which the prosecution fared better than the defense.
‘Brown’
In People v. Brown, 28 N.Y.3d 392 (2016), the Court decided a question that went unresolved two years ago in People v. Sibblies, 22 N.Y.3d 1174 (2014): If the People answer “ready” for trial off calendar and then are “not ready” at the next court appearance, do they bear the burden of showing that the statement of readiness was not illusory and therefore effective in stopping the speedy trial clock? The Brown majority held that a statement of readiness is “presumed … accurate and … a defendant who challenges such a statement must demonstrate that it is illusory.” The burden is on the defense. Writing separately, Judge Jenny Rivera disagreed, claiming that the majority’s holding “turn[ed] the [§30.30] statute on its head.” She argued that the People should be charged with the time between the two statements “absent an explanation of how th[e] lapse in status [was] due to some exceptional fact or circumstance.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
