In an article on April 12, (“When Adjournment Requests Are Critical“), Joel Cohen provided his usual, thoughtful analysis on an important issue in criminal practice. This particular installment of his column focuses on the ethics of seeking adjournments. In passing, however, he laments the practice of state court prosecutors declaring themselves ready for trial at arraignment, something that Cohen describes as a “bold pronouncement” that “might seem … untruthful,” a “reflexive[]” statement made when “ [the prosecutor] is not the least bit ready,” a “bluff,” and a “dirty little secret.” These charges against prosecutors are unwarranted in light of the case law.
“Readiness” under CPL § 30.30 is a term of art. A prosecutor can state ready for trial if (1) there is a converted accusatory instrument (an information (for a misdemeanor) or an indictment (for a felony)1, (2) there is a possibility of arraigning the defendant during the requisite time period,2 (3) the People have produced a defendant in their custody, and (4) the prosecutor has otherwise removed any legal impediments to trial.3 It requires a good faith statement of actual, present readiness.
This content has been archived.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]
