Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mowotlarx t1_je5b5s1 wrote

Maybe prosecutors should deal with getting defendants they are owed faster by asking for more funds and staff from the state, rather than suggesting the only way they can win is to hide evidence.

Of course, the Post and other right wing rags would never suggest that.

−7

Brolic_Broccoli OP t1_je5e31x wrote

Nobody here currently working in civil service is advocating for "hiding" evidence as a solution.

Many in this field view the idea and intent of discovery reforms as much needed. However, what I have identified is a serious and legitimate issue with the reforms. Let me paste this from an earlier comment:

99/100 a prosecutor receives all of the paperwork that they need to actually be able to prosecute the case from the NYPD, that's not an issue.

There are numerous factors and variables at play that lead to absurdly high dismissal rates. First, prosecutors don't only acquire need to acquire all of the discovery material..There aren't enough prosecutors to review hundreds of hours of police body cam footage, police and paperwork and redact witness home addresses so they are protected.

Just look at the Bronx DA walkout. You would need to hire about 5X the amount of prosecutors in each borough to be able to get through all of the paperwork and that's not feasible. The new proposed executive budget bill barely allocates any more funds for discovery. This work can't be pawned off on paralegals either, because each prosecutor must do this themselves on each and every case, because they need to "certify", by law, that they have exercised due diligence in seeking out any and all discovery material.

Second, what is "all paperwork/discovery relating to an arrest"? This opens the door to an infinite number of arguments. Do weather reports count? How about the names and contact information of 20+ unidentified passerbys who are impossible to get because of how populous NYC is? And these people aren't being called in to testify either.

Regardless, because a random person may or may not have seen something, then it's a question of is it discoverable? If a Judge rules that it is, the case is automatically tossed, and this is after 20+ hours were already put into the case and thousands of files and all video files known to exist have been turned over. These are just some of the issues and it's a non-exhaustive list, the reforms create an endless rabbit hole which leads to an inordinate rate of dismissals.

12

prisoner_007 t1_je5kt2o wrote

15% dismissal is absurdly high? That seems like hyperbole honestly.

−1

Brolic_Broccoli OP t1_je5n5sx wrote

The article references only DWI felonies.

Dismissals are at 15% this year, as opposed to the pre reform rate of 6%, which is a 250% increase in the rate of dismissals.

It would be interesting to review the % of misdeamanor cases, which based on my experience (but zero data) would be likely much higher.

12

prisoner_007 t1_je5v7sg wrote

You’re the one who said absurdly high and that’s the only percentage provided so is that what you were referring to or did you mean the imaginary percentage you assume exists?

1

Brolic_Broccoli OP t1_je5xfnn wrote

The dismissal rates of misdeamanors increased to 82% in 2021 as opposed to 49% in 2019.

I obviously don't keep my own statistics as that's not my job, but it's in line with my experience as a practicing criminal law attorney.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/how-new-york-discovery-law-destabilizes-criminal-justice-system#:~:text=Proportion%20of%20All%20Dispositions%20by,a%20whopping%2082%25%20in%202021.

6

prisoner_007 t1_je622t6 wrote

I don’t see anything about that being about DWIs. That’s just misdemeanors total, with no indication whether or not that increase was consistent across all misdemeanors or drive by large increases in specific types as far as I can see. So you still have no idea what the actual increase in DWI dismissals are and whether or not it’s absurd or not.

EDIT: I also just noticed that you’re relying on the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that’s been ardently ain’t bail and discovery reform since they were announced. So not exactly a non-biased source.

1

mission17 t1_je68u6i wrote

> I also just noticed that you’re relying on the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that’s been ardently ain’t bail and discovery reform since they were announced. So not exactly a non-biased source.

We're also in the comments of a NY Post article here that's literally a police op-ed.

3