Bill in State Legislature Would Allow Jury Trials for Low-Level Crimes in NYC
The legislation was inspired by the recent Court of Appeals decision in "People v. Suazo," which found a section of state law could be waived if a defendant was at risk to be deported as a result of a conviction.
December 21, 2018 at 04:11 PM
6 minute read
After a recent decision by the New York Court of Appeals allowed low-level defendants in New York City at risk of deportation to be granted a jury trial, a new bill in the state Legislature would extend the same opportunity to residents of the city regardless of immigration status.
The bill, introduced by State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, would remove a part of state law that denies defendants in New York City the option for a trial by jury if the crime they're charged with carries a maximum sentence of less than six months in jail.
That's the case when a defendant is charged with a class B misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of three months in jail. The law doesn't apply outside New York City, which Hoylman said was part of why he introduced the bill.
“Why should there be a double standard for New York City defendants charged with Class B misdemeanors?” Hoylman said.
The legislation was inspired by the recent Court of Appeals decision in People v. Suazo, which found the law could be waived if a defendant was at risk to be deported as a result of their conviction. It was the first time the high court considered the issue.
The defendant, Saylor Suazo, was initially charged by the Bronx District Attorney's Office with several crimes related to an alleged assault, the most serious being Class A misdemeanor charges. Those charges, which carry a maximum penalty of one year in prison, allowed Suazo to request a trial by jury.
Prosecutors then moved to reduce those charges to class B misdemeanor crimes, which do not mandate a jury trial in New York City. Suazo asked the court to grant him a jury trial because, unlike other defendants, the penalty following his conviction could also result in his deportation from the country. The trial judge denied his motion and he was found guilty after a bench trial in 2012.
Earlier this year, the case made it to the Court of Appeals, which sided with Suazo in a decision handed down late last month.
Associate Judge Leslie Stein wrote in the court's majority opinion that the possibility of Suazo's deportation following a conviction was a serious enough penalty to require a trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment.
“It is now beyond cavil that the penalty of deportation is among the most extreme and that it may, in some circumstances, rival incarceration in its loss of liberty,” Stein wrote. “Accordingly, we hold that a noncitizen defendant charged with a deportable crime is entitled to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, notwithstanding that the maximum authorized sentence is a term of imprisonment of six months or less.”
The decision will only change the jury trial requirement for noncitizen defendants in New York City at risk of deportation. That doesn't mean every noncitizen charged with a low-level crime will be granted a jury trial.
If prosecutors disagree that a defendant's conviction could result in their deportation, the judge overseeing the case will be tasked with evaluating that consequence. If the judge determines the defendant may be deported, a jury trial will be required. But if the judge finds there is no risk of deportation, the defendant will only be entitled to a bench trial.
Hoylman said, regardless of a defendant's immigration status, the possibility that an individual could be sent to jail should be enough to allow a jury trial for low-level crimes in New York City.
“With the sense that any class B misdemeanor can result in up to three months of a loss of liberty by a defendant, and much like the court's reasoning in Suazo, I believe that could be a sufficiently punitive penalty as to necessitate a defendant's right to a jury trial,” Hoylman said.
Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark, who urged lawmakers to introduce such a bill earlier this month following the Suazo decision, repeated her support in a statement on Friday.
“I am encouraged that the legislature has taken the necessary step to change CPL 340.40 and will now allow for jury trials for all New York City defendants charged with any misdemeanor,” Clark said. “This in turn brings fairness and equal protection to all residents of New York State.”
There are challenges that come with allowing more jury trials in New York City, particularly when it comes to backlog and resources for the state's courts. In 2017, there were 645 total misdemeanor trials in New York City, according to the Office of Court Administration. Of those, 470—or about three-quarters—were bench trials. A spokesman for OCA did not offer comment on Hoylman's bill, but said it's still reviewing how the decision in Suazo will change operations going forward.
“We are still in the process of reviewing the consequences of the decision and its potential effect on the New York City Criminal Court,” said Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for OCA.
Hoylman, who will also be the new chairman of the State Senate Judiciary Committee in January, said backlog is at the front of his mind when considering the bill, but that legislating the issue shouldn't stop just because there are difficulties involved.
“I think that's a pre-eminent concern of mine, but I'm also worried about taking shortcuts to avoid hard questions, like properly providing the resources to an independent branch of government to do its job,” Hoylman said.
Clark suggested that the Legislature consider providing more resources to the state's courts, including personnel, in this year's state budget, since Hoylman's bill would increase the number of jury trials in New York City if passed.
“The Legislature and the Judiciary must allocate more resources including increasing the number of judges and court personnel, especially court officers,” Clark said. “These resources will ensure that the courts will not suffer increased backlogs as a result of more jury trials.”
There's currently no sponsor of the bill in the Assembly, but Hoylman hopes that will change in the coming weeks as he continues to speak to stakeholders and other lawmakers about the bill. The legislative session begins in the second week of January.
READ MORE:
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250