Assembly Speaker Says There's No Appetite to Delay NY Criminal Justice Laws Amid Cost Concerns
Heastie was responding to a question from the Law Journal about efforts from prosecutors and members of law enforcement to convince the Legislature they aren't ready to implement the new laws on their scheduled start date of Jan. 1.
December 04, 2019 at 02:11 PM
6 minute read
Less than a month before New York's new laws on cash bail, criminal discovery and the right to a speedy trial are set to take effect, the leader of the state Assembly said Wednesday that the Legislature is unlikely to heed calls from law enforcement to delay their implementation.
Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, D-Bronx, told reporters at the state capitol in Albany that moving the start date of those laws would be antithetical to the intent of the changes.
"I think if you delay the implementation then that's still months of people who have been victimized by an unjust criminal justice system by being in the system even further," Heastie said.
Heastie was responding to a question from the New York Law Journal about efforts from prosecutors and members of law enforcement in recent months to convince the Legislature they aren't ready to implement the new laws on their scheduled start date of Jan. 1.
Prosecutors, particularly those in rural counties outside New York City, have said they won't be prepared to comply with the new laws by then. The same argument has been made by sheriffs and municipal leaders in rural areas of the state.
That's because, they've said, they'll need to hire more staff to comply with the new laws, which largely require defendants to receive information about the charges against them sooner than under previous law, and possibly more supervision if they're released before trial.
Heastie acknowledged that the new laws will be an adjustment for prosecutors and members of law enforcement, but said the changes will, in part, make the system fairer for low-income defendants accused of a crime, versus those who could previously afford bail.
"I know in this world people are very hesitant and resistant to change," Heastie said. "Nobody likes to change the way they do business, but I think coming up with a system that treats people equally and fairly without having access to money is the right system to have."
The coming changes broadly address three areas of criminal law: cash bail, criminal discovery and a defendant's right to a speedy trial.
The changes to criminal discovery have been the most controversial among prosecutors in terms of cost. The new law will require them to hand over discovery, or information to be used at trial, within 15 days of a defendant's arraignment in most cases.
That kind of deadline didn't previously exist in state law. Defense attorneys and supporters of the new law have said the limit will allow defendants to have access to the evidence against them sooner, which will help them decide their next steps in a case.
But prosecutors have said that 15 days isn't a reasonable amount of time for them to compile and review discovery before it's sent to a defendant's attorney. That evidence has to be manually reviewed, and in some cases it hasn't been received from law enforcement.
Prosecutors have also said that, with those changes, technological upgrades among their offices and members of law enforcement would expedite discovery. To do that, they would need a major infusion of funding, they've said.
The largest cost, prosecutors have said, would be from having to hire more staff to review discovery before its sent to defendants. Municipal leaders have said they would face the same problem from having to hire more police officers.
Under the new bail law, most defendants charged with low-level or nonviolent crimes will be released before trial without having to post bail. Local probation officials told lawmakers during a public hearing last month that they don't have the staff to monitor more defendants before trial.
Those costs would be borne by counties, rather than the state itself, because municipalities fund the activities of local law enforcement and prosecutors.
Heastie said Wednesday that he expects the reforms to largely pay for themselves over time because counties will save money from having fewer people in jail before trial. In the meantime, he said lawmakers may consider whether to provide a short-term infusion of funds.
"I think that over time, if there's less people that are in jail, then there's less cost of supervising people in jail. So, eventually it will lead to a county savings," Heastie said. "I know they've raised the issue of transition or transitional money, but we'll have to wait to see on that."
Gov. Andrew Cuomo has similarly rebuffed arguments from prosecutors and other stakeholders that more funding will be needed to implement the changes. Freeman Klopott, a spokesman from the state Division of Budget, has said new legislative changes will front the cost.
"There is no question resources are available for the implementation of these critical reforms as the State invests more than $300 million to support them and local governments will recognize hundreds of millions of dollars in annual savings from a declining inmate population," Klopott said.
Cuomo and lawmakers, for example, approved a new tax on internet sales earlier this year that's expected to provide $160 million in new revenue to counties in New York.
Prosecutors and members of law enforcement, including the New York Sheriffs Association, have also been critical of the content of the new laws, particularly when it comes to cash bail.
They've argued that, with fewer defendants eligible for cash bail, judges should be allowed to assess a defendant's perceived dangerousness, or threat to public safety, to decide if they should be incarcerated before trial.
Heastie, and other Democrats, rejected including such a provision in the changes earlier this year, and sources have said that position hasn't changed.
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 AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Weil Practice Leaders Expected to Leave for Paul Weiss, Latham
- 2Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 3Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 4Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 5Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
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