Stricter Discovery Deadlines Are Subject of Bill in NY Legislature
“The earlier we get relevant and discoverable information in the hands of a defendant, they can either know that there's no case against them and they can proceed toward a path to getting it dismissed, or there is evidence that they may have committed a crime,” State Sen. Jamaal Bailey said.
January 24, 2019 at 06:25 PM
6 minute read
New York legislators are pushing a new proposal to reform the state's laws on discovery that would establish a stringent schedule for prosecutors and defense attorneys to exchange evidence and material they intend to use at trial early on in a criminal proceeding.
The bills contains most of the provisions Gov. Andrew Cuomo included in his executive budget last week that would update the state's decades-old laws on discoverable material, which can currently be withheld from defendants until just days before their trial.
The bill is sponsored by Assemblyman Joe Lentol, D-Brooklyn, and State Sen. Jamaal Bailey, D-Bronx. Both lawmakers chair their respective Codes Committee, which typically reviews legislation involving criminal justice reform before it heads to the floor for a vote.
Bailey said the legislation will benefit both prosecutors and defendants by moving criminal cases forward while allowing open disclosure of discoverable material.
“The earlier we get relevant and discoverable information in the hands of a defendant, they can either know that there's no case against them and they can proceed toward a path to getting it dismissed, or there is evidence that they may have committed a crime,” Bailey said.
Instead of being under the prosecutor's discretion, most material intended to be used at trial would be due to the defense within 15 days of an individual's arraignment. The prosecution will then have to file a certificate of compliance with the court. At that point, the defendant will have 30 days after the prosecutor has filed the certificate to disclose any material they intend to present at trial.
Additional discovery would then be due to the defendant no later than 15 days before a trial is scheduled to begin, according to the bill. Prosecutors would also not be deemed ready for trial by the court until after they file their certificate of compliance.
Those deadlines currently don't exist in state law. Prosecutors have to automatically provide material to the defense that could help their case against charges, but all other material can be withheld until just days before trial.
“New York for too long has had a 'hide the ball' strategy that unnecessarily delays criminal cases,” Lentol said. “It is time to remove the blindfold and resolve cases fairly.”
There have been concerns in the past from opponents of discovery reform about the vulnerability of some discoverable material, such as witness information, that they have argued could be tampered with ahead of trial. If a defendant has details on a witness, for example, they may seek out that person, opponents have argued.
The new bill would allow prosecutors or the defense to seek a protective order from the judge in a case if the release of information would result in physical injury, harassment, or reveal the identity of an undercover police officer, Lentol said. That builds on existing laws with felony charges for witness intimidation and tampering.
Other areas that have implemented discovery reform haven't seen an uptick in those problems, Lentol said. The Brooklyn District Attorney's Office has already reformed its own policies on discovery, sharing information with defendants early on in cases.
“Other states—and some New York counties—provide broad discovery up front, without any increase in witness tampering or similar issues,” he said.
The bill has a few bonus provisions that are absent from Cuomo's proposal. Prosecutors would be required to disclose certain information in their possession at a defendant's arraignment, for example. According to the legislation, that could include police reports, witness statements, electronic recordings, and other material on hand at the time.
“By expediting discovery, both sides get a clearer view of the strengths and weaknesses of the other's case,” Lentol said. “This will facilitate fair results.”
It would also allow either side to conduct a pretrial deposition of an individual relevant to the case, like a police officer, expert witness, or someone who's expected to testify at trial. That deposition could then be used by either side to negotiate a plea deal or prepare their case. That provision was not included in Cuomo's proposal last week.
“We are hopeful that the governor will amend his proposal to include depositions and expand the provisions for discovery in negotiated plea cases,” Lentol said.
But, like Cuomo's proposal, lawmakers also included a provision that would allow defendants to consider all of the discoverable evidence against them before they agree to a plea deal. That's not currently allowed. Bailey said the provision will give defendants the tools to choose their best path forward.
“There's the potential for them to be able to plea, but being able to plea with information as opposed to pleading blindfolded,” Bailey said. “The majority of our cases are resolved via plea rather than trial. It would be helpful for defendants to know exactly what they're pleading to.”
While many of the reforms align with what Cuomo included in his state budget proposal, Bailey said he's planning to push for the bill to be passed outside of the spending plan, which is due at the end of March. That would allow the reforms to begin sooner. The bill would enact the changes 90 days after it's signed into law, according to the legislation.
“In the past we've had to get this done in the state budget because of the state Senate, but I'm hopeful that we can get these things done legislatively,” Bailey said.
The District Attorneys Association of the State of New York, which represents the legislative priorities of the state's prosecutors, did not offer comment on the bill.
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 AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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