It's a shame how the system works against those that are at the bottom of the ladder. Sorry to say it but in America if you are charged of a crime your chances of aquittal are greater if you have High Power legal defense. The people in this ariticle were represented by Legal Aid . Though these are good dedicated attorneys their workk load is unfair to them and their client. I take my hat off to people like Ms. Kristin Bruan.
2
(More than a dozen defense lawyers and judges who practice in Manhattan said the district’s attorney’s office there hewed closely to the restrictive state law. Even the name of the accuser is routinely withheld until the eve of trial, they said.)
I tried a case earlier this year where this tactic was used. Once the name finally became available to us, we were able to discover, through our own investigation, material that led to an acquittal at trial.
(The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., disputed the characterization. “We do provide more than the law allows already,” Mr. Vance said. “If it’s in the file, we tell our assistants to turn it over, except in situations that involve witness safety.”)
If it's in the file?! this office does not turn over what is "in the file" ever. This is an outright lie.
(In late May, Mr. Vance’s office announced a new policy to provide discovery at arraignment in some felony cases when the main witness is a police officer.)
Still waiting for this on cases involving just police officers. It's not happening.
(Mr. Ryan and Mr. Vance acknowledged that defense lawyers who had good relationships with prosecutors were apt to get an earlier crack at discovery than others.)
This is euphemism. "Good relationships" means attorneys who knuckle under and don't rock the boat. Defend your client zealously and you are immediately branded someone not to be accommodated.
I tried a case earlier this year where this tactic was used. Once the name finally became available to us, we were able to discover, through our own investigation, material that led to an acquittal at trial.
(The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., disputed the characterization. “We do provide more than the law allows already,” Mr. Vance said. “If it’s in the file, we tell our assistants to turn it over, except in situations that involve witness safety.”)
If it's in the file?! this office does not turn over what is "in the file" ever. This is an outright lie.
(In late May, Mr. Vance’s office announced a new policy to provide discovery at arraignment in some felony cases when the main witness is a police officer.)
Still waiting for this on cases involving just police officers. It's not happening.
(Mr. Ryan and Mr. Vance acknowledged that defense lawyers who had good relationships with prosecutors were apt to get an earlier crack at discovery than others.)
This is euphemism. "Good relationships" means attorneys who knuckle under and don't rock the boat. Defend your client zealously and you are immediately branded someone not to be accommodated.
4
Call me naive, but what I don't understand is why, if a prosecutor (or presumably, police) has access to convincing exculpatory evidence (like the nightclub tape in the article), he would knowingly continue with the prosecution (or arrest) of an innocent man. Are there such perverse incentives in place around clearance rate that it's better to get a conviction (or arrest) of an innocent person than to have a case still open? Is there a peculiarly high incidence of low intelligence/competence or low integrity in law enforcement? It seems like there's some systemic cause for this shady prosecuting that needs to be addressed before Brady violations and non-cooperation with discovery can be stopped. In other words, if the problem is "prosecutors coerce innocent people into taking plea deals by hiding evidence from them," then the solution isn't necessarily "stop prosecutors from hiding evidence," but rather "stop prosecutors from prosecuting people of crimes of which the evidence shows they are innocent."
2
NY and other states should change the law so that defendants get a fair shake. How many witnesses are actually intimidated in states where discovery is immediate? Is it a significant number? It seems that protecting such witnesses is important, but the rights of the defendant are equally important.
if the case is otherwise solid, then releasing discovery in a timely fashion should not be an issue at all.
if the case is otherwise solid, then releasing discovery in a timely fashion should not be an issue at all.
From the American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility:
"Standard 3- 1.2 The Function of the Prosecutor
(a) The office of prosecutor is charged with responsibility for prosecutions in its jurisdiction.
(b) The prosecutor is an administrator of justice, an advocate, and an officer of the court; the prosecutor must exercise sound discretion in the performance of his or her functions.
(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
From American Bar Association-Center for Professional Responsibility:
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
"Standard 3- 1.2 The Function of the Prosecutor
(a) The office of prosecutor is charged with responsibility for prosecutions in its jurisdiction.
(b) The prosecutor is an administrator of justice, an advocate, and an officer of the court; the prosecutor must exercise sound discretion in the performance of his or her functions.
(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
From American Bar Association-Center for Professional Responsibility:
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
1
Having been married to a right-hand of a Prosecuting Attorney, and working with courts for several years arranging for cameras in the courtrooms, I've seen a very dark side of otherwise well-intentioned people. It's just normal to want to game a system to help you win. But we're talking about the freedom of potentially innocent people. In spite of the frustration that comes with doing their jobs, legal professionals need to remember the rules apply to them and their children as well.
Maybe it will take a John Grisham book to convince them of the dangers they face by cheating like this? Because reason and common decency, and the Constitution (which they have sworn to support) don't seem to have had the proper impact on their behavior.
Maybe it will take a John Grisham book to convince them of the dangers they face by cheating like this? Because reason and common decency, and the Constitution (which they have sworn to support) don't seem to have had the proper impact on their behavior.
2
When it is more important to "win" a case than serving justice, this is the result.
1
Why is this paper not then speaking to Title IX injustices by college tribunals, their lack of due process?
3
The Times has continuing coverage of this issue.
1
I hope Mr. Spry learned a life-changing lesson. When it's your birthday and you're 27 enjoy it and avoid getting into arguments with girlfriends. People should be in a good mood on their birthday not getting into heated arguments. That's the day she most likely decided to do what she might have always wanted and that is to call the cops on him. And his kicking and flailing when the cops arrived only contributed to his dilemma.
The adversarial nature of the Anglosaxon law-enforcement and judicial system inevitably turns it into a kind of sport game. The players have long forgotten what it is all about and follow their natural instincts. For them it's not about truth and it's not about justice---any experienced (and disillusioned) lawyer will tell you. Its about winning the game. And fairness? What sport team would jeopardize a favorable outcome if it can get away with an unwitnessed foul. And if so, why not use any tactic not explicitly forbidden by the rules of the game? After all, the defendant is only the ball.
1
As so well put by Federal Appellate Judge Alex Kozinski, "There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land." This problem is rampant. There is no reason to have anything but open file discovery rules. Sometimes there are issues of witness/victim safety but that may be easily remedied by redaction.
As a twenty year veteran in a large criminal defense organization, we often suffer newly minted prosecutor who believes anything less than draconian punishment will put his job, reputation and ego at risk. Win at all costs is the norm for almost all prosecutors. They believe that even if defendant is innocent of "this crime" he did something which deserves punishment.
Just give us the evidence, immediately, and let the judge and jury sort it out. Instead, prosecutors only feel comfortable when they act as judge, jury and executioner - despite innocence or mitigating factors.
Injustice breeds contempt which breeds criminal behavior. Every violation of the constitution puts all of us in harm's way.
As a twenty year veteran in a large criminal defense organization, we often suffer newly minted prosecutor who believes anything less than draconian punishment will put his job, reputation and ego at risk. Win at all costs is the norm for almost all prosecutors. They believe that even if defendant is innocent of "this crime" he did something which deserves punishment.
Just give us the evidence, immediately, and let the judge and jury sort it out. Instead, prosecutors only feel comfortable when they act as judge, jury and executioner - despite innocence or mitigating factors.
Injustice breeds contempt which breeds criminal behavior. Every violation of the constitution puts all of us in harm's way.
1
There's a simple response, that I'm not sure defense attorneys have tried. If evidence is finally turned over at the last minute from the prosecution, move for a lengthy continuance so the defense may properly analyze and investigate the evidence. If the prosecution objects put on the record that unless the the defense is given the necessary time, the defendant will have been denied the right to the "effective assistance of counsel for his defense," in violation of the 6th Amendment. Judges are under pressure to resolve cases under deadlines. Furthermore, they could be looking at the prospect of giving the defense a solid basis for appeals and writs of Habeas Corpus. I would additionally argue that refusal by the prosecution to turn over this evidence when they obtain it for the specific purpose of denying the defense adequate preparation time constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. Given the likely disruption to the court's administrative scheduling and the likelihood of handing the defense solid bases for appeals/habeas the court will very likely start issuing orders to the prosecution to divulge the requested material a reasonable time before trial is to commence.
1
A corollary to "justice delayed is justice denied" should be "evidence delayed is justice denied."
2
Why not name the prosecutors that have done this?
3
This quote says it all.. "I knew I was innocent, but I didn’t know what they had against me,” he said."
The people wouldn't have any additional evidence than what occurred. The accused knows exactly what occurred. Here is a perfect example of a person committing a crime but is willing to plead not guilty if he / she figures they cab get away with it because the case may lack video testimony, dna, i.e. The liberals continue to enable these folks to commit additional crimes.
Bottom line - the accused no exactly what they did and did not do and thus theu should make decisions on that alone.
The people wouldn't have any additional evidence than what occurred. The accused knows exactly what occurred. Here is a perfect example of a person committing a crime but is willing to plead not guilty if he / she figures they cab get away with it because the case may lack video testimony, dna, i.e. The liberals continue to enable these folks to commit additional crimes.
Bottom line - the accused no exactly what they did and did not do and thus theu should make decisions on that alone.
"The people wouldn't have any additional evidence than what occurred."
This is completely false, as the article shows. Witnesses change their minds all the time. In the Spry case, the police captain first claimed Spry tried to grab the gun, and later said he did not recall that. Since those recollections cannot both be true, the people obviously had additional evidence beyond what occurred.
This is completely false, as the article shows. Witnesses change their minds all the time. In the Spry case, the police captain first claimed Spry tried to grab the gun, and later said he did not recall that. Since those recollections cannot both be true, the people obviously had additional evidence beyond what occurred.
You have a serious lack of imagination. One has to defend one's self against false accusations as well as real ones. If you can't prepare, then you're out of luck. You better hope it doesn't happen to you, because after saying something like this, Karma just might nail you.
"The liberals"......really? This is the type of attitude that perpetuates this. The issue here is that prosecutors want to withhold information that would put a defendants innocence in jeopardy simply so that they can win a case.
Both teams (prosecution and defense) should have the exact same information so that an accurate case can be made either for or against a conviction.
This is supposed to be a country where people are "innocent before proven guilty". By withholding information, the prosecution basically has their thumb on the scales of justice.
Both teams (prosecution and defense) should have the exact same information so that an accurate case can be made either for or against a conviction.
This is supposed to be a country where people are "innocent before proven guilty". By withholding information, the prosecution basically has their thumb on the scales of justice.
NYT may be failing, but I appreciate good investigative work like this. Your partnerships (Marshall, Frontline, ProPublica) produce good work.
Combine this hiding of evidence with the usual immunity for police who provide false testimony and you have a totally rigged system. In an intelligent society we would have more jury nullification, except that jury selection often tends to be rigged also.
2
What strikes me most about the Cedras case was that it seems like prosecutorial overreach or perhaps using their own logic, prosecutorial misconduct. I looked at the video and would not have wanted to put him jail with such weak inference.
1
One way to suppress poor people is to incur stiffer penalties and apply bogus rules to crimes they are more like to commit.
1
I hope Winston Jones is a pseudonym.
A trial should not be about a prosecutor or a defense attorney "winning." It should be about Truth winning. If the prosecution has evidence which exonerates the defendant, put it forward, and celebrate a not-guilty verdict. If the defense has evidence which irrefutably reveals guilt, put it forward and be glad a criminal receives his just punishment. A trial is not a horse race, a video game, a win-lose; it should be a win-win with Truth as the victor.
2
Nice theory. In reality, prosecutors want to chalk up a "win" -- and many are perfectly willing to lie, cheat, suppress evidence, and suborn perjury to get one.
I know this (was married to 2 defense attorneys), and I blame the law schools for creating this win-lose culture for lawyers.
The system is corrupt, plain and simple. Either you are seeking justice or out for a win. Protecting witnesses has nothing to do with discovery per se, that needs to be addressed 100% but not at the expense of justice. Prosecutors and their surrogates that knowingly break the law should be punished accordingly. A wrongful conviction is twice as bad as not because an innocent goes to jail and a criminal keeps committing crimes. The harm is draconian. Plea bargains need to be carefully vetted and pressure eliminated that is not directly tied to the evidence.
3
Prosecutorial misconduct and violations of the constitution by them is out of control in this country. The fact that so many plea is proof to the fact they are basically blackmailers when they threaten longer sentences if one doesn't plea. And the holding of evidence has gone on for years. They have put many people who are innocent behind bars just to burnish their numbers. Until some of these violators of the constitution all put in jail nothing will change. Every American has a constitutional right to a trial decided by a group of their peers and these blackmailing plea bargains make a mockery of that.
1
How about asking state bar associations to disbar prosecutors who engage in these deprivations of constitutionally guaranteed rights for criminal defendants. Maybe the threat losing one's license to practice law would change the mindset of these prosecutors.
When I was in H.S. a fellow student named Peter Reilly was accused of brutally murdering his mother. Although he had just left a church-sponsored event and was wearing the same clothes with no blood on them when the police arrived, they decided he'd committed the crime. After a night of intense interrogation, during which he was deprived of food or council, this newly orphaned teen confessed. The state's entire case was built on that confession.
Between the conviction and the appeal, the prosecutor died. When the new prosecutor took over the case, he dropped it having found clearly exculpatory evidence in Peter's file: evidence that had never been revealed to the defense.
Our judicial system should be as fair as we can possibly make it. Extra advantages to one side for political gain should be out of the question. Furthermore, there should be penalties for prosecutors who deliberately ignore evidence just so they can add another conviction to their resumes.
Between the conviction and the appeal, the prosecutor died. When the new prosecutor took over the case, he dropped it having found clearly exculpatory evidence in Peter's file: evidence that had never been revealed to the defense.
Our judicial system should be as fair as we can possibly make it. Extra advantages to one side for political gain should be out of the question. Furthermore, there should be penalties for prosecutors who deliberately ignore evidence just so they can add another conviction to their resumes.
6
Prosecutors are supposed to turn over evidence that is favorable to the accused — called Brady material after a landmark 1963 Supreme Court decision — regardless of other discovery rules. But the Supreme Court never set deadlines, and lower courts have split over whether Brady material must be turned over before a plea.
This is not an important enough issue for the Supreme Court to consider. But the justices all do have time to write books and make lucrative public appearances for which the public (mostly lawyers and law students) pay hefty ticket prices to see and listen to these esteemed jurists pontificate.
Meanwhile . . .
Most take the deal. According to the State Division of Criminal Justice Services, more than 98 percent of felony arrests that end in convictions occur through a guilty plea, not a trial, a slightly higher number than national figures.
Ms. Bruan filed a motion for discovery shortly after Mr. Cedres was arrested. Under the law, the prosecution had 15 days to hand over the material or explain why it would not. More than two months after Ms. Bruan’s initial request, the prosecutor wrote that the video “does not show anything/is corrupted,” an email shows. Ms. Bruan pushed back, and after five more months of wrangling, the videos appeared in her inbox. They showed almost exactly what Mr. Cedres had said they would. After a year and a half and 22 court appearances, the charges were dismissed.
In the meantime, Mr. Cedres lost his job and much more.
This is not an important enough issue for the Supreme Court to consider. But the justices all do have time to write books and make lucrative public appearances for which the public (mostly lawyers and law students) pay hefty ticket prices to see and listen to these esteemed jurists pontificate.
Meanwhile . . .
Most take the deal. According to the State Division of Criminal Justice Services, more than 98 percent of felony arrests that end in convictions occur through a guilty plea, not a trial, a slightly higher number than national figures.
Ms. Bruan filed a motion for discovery shortly after Mr. Cedres was arrested. Under the law, the prosecution had 15 days to hand over the material or explain why it would not. More than two months after Ms. Bruan’s initial request, the prosecutor wrote that the video “does not show anything/is corrupted,” an email shows. Ms. Bruan pushed back, and after five more months of wrangling, the videos appeared in her inbox. They showed almost exactly what Mr. Cedres had said they would. After a year and a half and 22 court appearances, the charges were dismissed.
In the meantime, Mr. Cedres lost his job and much more.
4
A serious flaw in our criminal justice system is that prosecutors, who generally must run for election and often have higher political ambitions (several U.S. senators are former prosecutors), are way too powerful. They can get away with all sorts of malfeasance without ever being held to account, because they are supposedly society's bulwark against the hours of crime. Some even fancy themselves to be knights in shining armor rescuing society from the bad guys, and therefore anything they do must be deemed acceptable. Others just want to win their cases at all costs. Withholding crucial, potentially exculpatory evidence until just before trial renders meaningless the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and the Sixth Amendment rights to confront witnesses and to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused.
6
As someone who practiced as a public defender in Brooklyn, I can confidently say that the Brooklyn DA's office is not ahead of the game - their District Attorneys routinely withhold discovery and information that is critical to defenders investigating the allegations and advising clients about taking pleas. The system is clearly broken. Just consider the fact that, according to the DA's in both Queens and Manhattan, your chances at getting discovery as a defense attorney depend on your relationship with the prosecutor on your case. We are way overdue for discovery reform in New York.
6
So a prosecutor will indict someone on inflated charges that have extra long sentences and then withhold the evidence that could aid the defendant in his defense as long as the law permits (and sometimes longer) to force a plea bargain whether the accused is guilty or not. This is not justice served.
It's well and good to change the rules of evidence, but until prosecutors start paying real penalties for prosecutorial misconduct, there will always be a few prosecutors for whom winning is more important than justice and who will withhold exculpatory evidence.
It's well and good to change the rules of evidence, but until prosecutors start paying real penalties for prosecutorial misconduct, there will always be a few prosecutors for whom winning is more important than justice and who will withhold exculpatory evidence.
8
If conservative states like Texas and North Carolina are reforming, are we to conclude there is something wrong with prosecutors in our liberal state, including our governor? I'm afraid the answer is yes. Going by one's fears, one's own experience, and anecdotal evidence, and finally, a touch of paranoia, well, that's how we got Trump elected! Fairness is a virtue our justice system should strive for, not protection of witnesses, not a war games between attorneys. Witnesses should be protected but to prioritize that over fairness, is fear-based thinking, not rational thinking.
3
How much has NY payed out to defendants in wrong conviction cases the last 10 years. Those numbers alone suggests the system is broken and rigged unless you spend your life's savings to hire a decent attorney.
3
Sadly Australia reflects the inadequacy of discovery laws.
I was arrested, charged, photographed and fingerprinted and jailed and bailed.
The charges were not pursued to trial and withdrawn by police without explanation.
The charges were promulgated to the media and neighbors by a sworn police officer and were career ending for me.
Down under the right of discovery is a bit dodgy.
Despite requesting information concerning reasons for my arrest 15 years ago I have received no information.
Australians are subject to arbitrary arrest as evidenced above.
I was arrested, charged, photographed and fingerprinted and jailed and bailed.
The charges were not pursued to trial and withdrawn by police without explanation.
The charges were promulgated to the media and neighbors by a sworn police officer and were career ending for me.
Down under the right of discovery is a bit dodgy.
Despite requesting information concerning reasons for my arrest 15 years ago I have received no information.
Australians are subject to arbitrary arrest as evidenced above.
1
The American justice system long ago quite being about justice and became much more about political expediency.
8
you should add to that financial expediency. typical is civil forfeiture when your assets are seized prior to trial. then when you are found innocent you have to sue to get your money. most of the time people give up part of the monies/assets to avoid years of litigation. the monies are kept by local police departments to expand themselves.
3
The district attorney's job is to prove someone guilty, the defense attorney's job is to prove someone not guilty. Saying that the district attorneys need to care about the law is fair, but allocating already scant resources within the DA's office to aid the defense in a black and white system is not as feasible as we would like it to be.
1
the district attorney's job is certainly NOT to prove someone is guilty. their job is to administer justice and prosecute the cases that should be prosecuted. when prosecutors care more about winning than fairness and the truth, thats when we get into serious trouble. unfortunately for these men thats exactly what happened, the individual prosecutors cared more about winning than justice.
18
"the defense attorney's job is to prove someone not guilty: - Incorrect : Defense has Nothing to PROVE; should the Prosecution Fail to Prove Guilt, it is due to the Insufficiency of the Evidence, thus Defendant must be found "Not Guilty", a lesser standard of "Innocence". Jury Instructions must make this clear. http://bit.ly/15x1fNY
1
The DA's job is not to prove someone's guilt necessarily. It is to be fair and impartial and do what is right given a particular set of circumstances. If a video proves someone's innocence the DA's job changes from prosecution to one in which the defendant is released. And, the opposite is true as well. If a video proves guilt he/she presumably has the evidence to move forward with prosecution. The DA's job is to act accordingly to what the evidence shows. Obviously a case lacking evidence becomes far more difficult as the DA is now possibly guessing as to guilt.
The recent article on campus rape is a prime example. If you truly have a he said/she said scenario with no witnesses and zero evidence of bodily harm to either party or date rape drugs being present you have a scenario where you simply do not know who is being less than truthful.
The recent article on campus rape is a prime example. If you truly have a he said/she said scenario with no witnesses and zero evidence of bodily harm to either party or date rape drugs being present you have a scenario where you simply do not know who is being less than truthful.
1
I say any person in the prosecution industry (from police through judge and all points between) who is found by a jury to have altered, destroyed, hidden, or created evidence, or have caused same, should receive the same punishment as the defendent would have received for the most serrious crime charged.
18
I am a fire investigator with a national practice. New York is the worst state for pre-trial discovery. You folks believe passionately in trial by ambush. I live in Florida, where there is not only discovery, but actual depositions (sworn testimony) available. Defense counsel gets Florida's prisons are just as full as they are elsewhere.
The model for discovery is (who would have thought?) TEXAS! They have a completely open file system as a result of prosecutors hiding the ball in the Michael Morton case. Mr. Morton served 27 years for murdering his wife, a crime he did not do. While prosecutors hid the exculpatory evidence, the real killer took at least one other life. Prosecutors are supposed to protect society, but the way they practice in New York (B'klyn excepted) allows innocent people to do time while the real perps walk. It's time to get with the program, New york. Look up the Michael Morton Act.
The model for discovery is (who would have thought?) TEXAS! They have a completely open file system as a result of prosecutors hiding the ball in the Michael Morton case. Mr. Morton served 27 years for murdering his wife, a crime he did not do. While prosecutors hid the exculpatory evidence, the real killer took at least one other life. Prosecutors are supposed to protect society, but the way they practice in New York (B'klyn excepted) allows innocent people to do time while the real perps walk. It's time to get with the program, New york. Look up the Michael Morton Act.
19
Lost a sentence at the end of the first paragraph. Defense counsel gets to question any or all of the state's witnesses under oath before the trial, and the prosecutor gets to question the defendant's witnesses. There are no surprises at trial.
The current state of the law is a flagrant mockery of the US Constitution, and its endurance is an indicator of profound social indifference to institutional hypocrisy.
11
So true.
I am 63 years old with a clean record, but have had contentious relations with a neighbor for several years.
In May, he called the police and charged me with trespass for mowing across our indefinite property line. I could not believe that two deputies would invest 1 hour 40 minutes to investigate this. I naïvely thought that I would show up in town court and the judge would throw out this ridiculous case.
Instead, I was told I should return to court with an attorney. I was still in denial that I really needed an attorney because of the minor charge and that there were uncertainties that I was actually on his property. I was not able to get more information about the "evidence" from the court.
When I returned to court with an attorney, the ADA offered a Adjournment Contemplating Dismissal (ACD), but it came with a 6 month non-offensive Order of Protection. My options were to roll the dice and return to court, hoping the judge would dismiss the case "in the interest of justice" or be found innocent when it went to trial. This would involve delays & additional attorney fees. Unlike the ADA, I did not have access to the police report nor 911 calls so I was at a disadvantage. I opted for the offer because I wanted to get this behind me-- certainty trumped the uncertainty.
What a waste of time and money for all concerned: police, court, ADA, & me. I was fortunate to be able to afford good counsel.
This article makes very clear that the NYS system is flawed.
In May, he called the police and charged me with trespass for mowing across our indefinite property line. I could not believe that two deputies would invest 1 hour 40 minutes to investigate this. I naïvely thought that I would show up in town court and the judge would throw out this ridiculous case.
Instead, I was told I should return to court with an attorney. I was still in denial that I really needed an attorney because of the minor charge and that there were uncertainties that I was actually on his property. I was not able to get more information about the "evidence" from the court.
When I returned to court with an attorney, the ADA offered a Adjournment Contemplating Dismissal (ACD), but it came with a 6 month non-offensive Order of Protection. My options were to roll the dice and return to court, hoping the judge would dismiss the case "in the interest of justice" or be found innocent when it went to trial. This would involve delays & additional attorney fees. Unlike the ADA, I did not have access to the police report nor 911 calls so I was at a disadvantage. I opted for the offer because I wanted to get this behind me-- certainty trumped the uncertainty.
What a waste of time and money for all concerned: police, court, ADA, & me. I was fortunate to be able to afford good counsel.
This article makes very clear that the NYS system is flawed.
11
clearly time to prosecute the prosecutor...
11
Good examples of why immunity should not protect prosecutorial misconduct, as it does in many states, most notably Texas.
5
Speaking more broadly, criminal justice reform is something that can happen only if the public supports it. The prevailing public mindset in the 1970's and 1980's was that criminals were "getting away with it" through "technicalities." The "technicalities" in question were often actually constitutional rights and procedure intended to ensure transparency and fairness in the system.
This public mindset lent force to a movement by prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and politicians who want to "score a win against crime" to implement rules that took away a lot of these important procedural protections. Judges facing re-election enforced Supreme Court rulings about turning over exculpatory evidence only loosely, and many prosecutors didn't take it seriously in light of pressure to get more convictions. The result, unsurprisingly, were more convictions and more draconian sentences. This was declared a victory because it created the perception that crime was being addressed effectively.
It's only in the last decade or so that the public is becoming more sensitive to the dysfunctions those 70's and 80's "reforms" are causing. I hope we learn from history and don't go back to the old way of doing things. But sadly, I think at the next hint of a crime wave, all this will be unlearned and the public will want more convictions at all costs again.
This public mindset lent force to a movement by prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and politicians who want to "score a win against crime" to implement rules that took away a lot of these important procedural protections. Judges facing re-election enforced Supreme Court rulings about turning over exculpatory evidence only loosely, and many prosecutors didn't take it seriously in light of pressure to get more convictions. The result, unsurprisingly, were more convictions and more draconian sentences. This was declared a victory because it created the perception that crime was being addressed effectively.
It's only in the last decade or so that the public is becoming more sensitive to the dysfunctions those 70's and 80's "reforms" are causing. I hope we learn from history and don't go back to the old way of doing things. But sadly, I think at the next hint of a crime wave, all this will be unlearned and the public will want more convictions at all costs again.
6
Yet another argument that prosecutors will do almost anything to obtain a conviction, which allows many real criminals to skate free and thumb their noses at the system, while the innocent are forced to accept a plea deal. This is what passes for "tough on crime" in the US.
11
What troubles me about Mr Cedres's case is that a prosecutor was happy to send an innocent man to jail. Unless prosecution is accompanied by a broader test of public interest, it's little more than state-licensed kidnapping. I trust Mr Cedres has the basis of an excellent civil case against the prosecutors; and if not, why not?
10
Because barring malicious intent that you can prove they are immune from prosecution. They aren't quite at the level that judges get but almost.
2
Sick justice, that's what this is. And impunity for defendants?
1
It is unethical for prosecutors to withhold that would undermine their case, despite their opinions about a defendant's guilt. In Massachusetts, such evidence is due upon arraignment or as soon as the evidence becomes known to the prosecutor. The argument to the contrary - that the sky will fall if disclosure is made - has not occurred. Not just rules for immediate discovery, but personal sanctions for violation of such rules, are needed. A prosecutor who knew he faced disbarment for failure to disclose might think twice.
9
Contrast that with the prosecutors here in New South Wales, Australia. Director of Public Prosecutions Guideline 18 states (in part):
"Prosecutors are under a continuing obligation to make full disclosure to the accused in a timely manner of all material known to the prosecutor which can be seen on a sensible appraisal by the prosecution:
- to be relevant or possibly relevant to an issue in the case; and/or
- to raise or possibly raise a new issue whose existence is not apparent from the evidence the prosecution proposes to use.
Police are under their own separate obligations under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, section 15A, which states (in part):
"Law enforcement officers investigating alleged offences have a duty to disclose to the Director [of Public Prosecutions] all relevant information, documents or other things obtained during the investigation that might reasonably be expected to assist the case for the prosecution or the case for the accused person."
The legislation and guidelines mean relevant evidence is served well before a plea is ever required to be entered for more serious matters.
The reason our system works this way is because of how the prosecutor's role is perceived:
"A prosecutor is a "minister of justice". The prosecutor's principal role is to assist the court to arrive at the truth and to do justice between the community and the accused according to law and the dictates of fairness." (Guideline 2)
"Prosecutors are under a continuing obligation to make full disclosure to the accused in a timely manner of all material known to the prosecutor which can be seen on a sensible appraisal by the prosecution:
- to be relevant or possibly relevant to an issue in the case; and/or
- to raise or possibly raise a new issue whose existence is not apparent from the evidence the prosecution proposes to use.
Police are under their own separate obligations under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, section 15A, which states (in part):
"Law enforcement officers investigating alleged offences have a duty to disclose to the Director [of Public Prosecutions] all relevant information, documents or other things obtained during the investigation that might reasonably be expected to assist the case for the prosecution or the case for the accused person."
The legislation and guidelines mean relevant evidence is served well before a plea is ever required to be entered for more serious matters.
The reason our system works this way is because of how the prosecutor's role is perceived:
"A prosecutor is a "minister of justice". The prosecutor's principal role is to assist the court to arrive at the truth and to do justice between the community and the accused according to law and the dictates of fairness." (Guideline 2)
5
To start with, the events described in this article (prosecutors trying to bluff defendants into incriminating themselves by not disclosing charges they may have) stem from the existence of plea-bargain. Plea-bargain has always struck me as anti-justice and leading to that kind of absurdity. Isn't justice about establishing facts as best as can be done, and then passing judgment based on it? Why is any kind of bargaining allowed in that equation?
8
Without plea deals, defendants would be waiting many years for trials. What you suggest is simply impossible.
'What you suggest is simply impossible.'
Imposible within the present setup, within the present mindset, maybe, but not within any system where the intention is to 'clear the books'.
That is so long as somebody is locked up, the particular crime has been solved.
Used to happen here in Australia, ---- planting 'evidence' still does --- the prosecutor would bob up when a newby pleaded guilty and say, 'And asks for the following offences to be taken into consideration' and would speil off a list of unsolved crimes of which the newby knew nothing.
Nobody who follows events in the States expects anything n the US to function equitably or honestly, or with any sense of decency but that doesn't mean that honest , decent systems of social justice, law and order and government cannot be devised. Such things exist elsewhere across the planet.
Imposible within the present setup, within the present mindset, maybe, but not within any system where the intention is to 'clear the books'.
That is so long as somebody is locked up, the particular crime has been solved.
Used to happen here in Australia, ---- planting 'evidence' still does --- the prosecutor would bob up when a newby pleaded guilty and say, 'And asks for the following offences to be taken into consideration' and would speil off a list of unsolved crimes of which the newby knew nothing.
Nobody who follows events in the States expects anything n the US to function equitably or honestly, or with any sense of decency but that doesn't mean that honest , decent systems of social justice, law and order and government cannot be devised. Such things exist elsewhere across the planet.
2
Then let them wait. Better to wait for justice than rush into injustice.
The U.S. justice system long ago quit being about justice.
The U.S. justice system long ago quit being about justice.
Please name the other 9 states with similar discovery rules.
1
The article says that prosecutors can wait until the last minute to share evidence but it doesn't say that defendants don't have the same option. Nonetheless it seems to me that Prosecutors should be more interested in justice and not just convictions. We also don't know whether or not the sentence would have been less considering the guy did throw a punch and that alone is assault. I'm in favor of giving the best defense tactics to the person charged since I think it's wrong to withhold evidence that would help the defense.
3
Let this be a lesson to each and every one of us. The legal system in this country is hardly altruistic in its endeavors. Although the majority of law enforcement people want to do a good job, too many withhold evidence that might damage their cases,or, they outright lie.
It seems once a month some poor guy is getting out of jail after spending 18 years in jail for something he didn't do. Sometimes that person could have been proved innocent if all the information was out before, or at trial.
There are too many Scarcellas, Duke University case prosecutors, cops planting evidence, and cops outright lying to have unquestioning confidence in "the justice system works!" There are too many prosecutors who have an eye on higher office and need to pump up the win column on their personal scorecards!
Do everything to protect yourself from the get go if you are involved with the police. Never speak to them without your lawyer present. I hate to tarnish the good cops with this...But you never know who's good and who's bad .... So protect yourself at all times!
It seems once a month some poor guy is getting out of jail after spending 18 years in jail for something he didn't do. Sometimes that person could have been proved innocent if all the information was out before, or at trial.
There are too many Scarcellas, Duke University case prosecutors, cops planting evidence, and cops outright lying to have unquestioning confidence in "the justice system works!" There are too many prosecutors who have an eye on higher office and need to pump up the win column on their personal scorecards!
Do everything to protect yourself from the get go if you are involved with the police. Never speak to them without your lawyer present. I hate to tarnish the good cops with this...But you never know who's good and who's bad .... So protect yourself at all times!
16
When the Times investigates and publishes pieces such as this one it vindicates journalism's highest purpose and endeavor, to not only inform but to push for change in a system rife with abuse, such as our criminal justice system.
By the way, the counter-argument to the DA perennial warning of "witness intimidation," is to strengthen the laws for such, and prosecute them fully.
When was the last time a state DA actually prosecuted a witness for perjury? Not often, and that is only one example of DA malfeasance. They are just "too busy." If so, the DA lobby needs to pressure Albany for more resources, not to limit defendants' Brady rights.
And maybe the Times will soon take up another New York state shameful practice which ruins lives and reflects poorly on our criminal system; the centuries-old practice of lay town judges, with little knowledge of current criminal law practice and procedure, presiding over misdemeanors in which the defendant can be sentenced for up to a year in county jail.
Too often, these convictions, especially in the rural areas, result from judicial ignorance and limited Brady information as described in today's Times piece, with no real appellate path for correction.
A partial fix is to proscribe lay judges from handling criminal misdemeanors, leaving them only in the hands of attorney-judges.
Till that day....
By the way, the counter-argument to the DA perennial warning of "witness intimidation," is to strengthen the laws for such, and prosecute them fully.
When was the last time a state DA actually prosecuted a witness for perjury? Not often, and that is only one example of DA malfeasance. They are just "too busy." If so, the DA lobby needs to pressure Albany for more resources, not to limit defendants' Brady rights.
And maybe the Times will soon take up another New York state shameful practice which ruins lives and reflects poorly on our criminal system; the centuries-old practice of lay town judges, with little knowledge of current criminal law practice and procedure, presiding over misdemeanors in which the defendant can be sentenced for up to a year in county jail.
Too often, these convictions, especially in the rural areas, result from judicial ignorance and limited Brady information as described in today's Times piece, with no real appellate path for correction.
A partial fix is to proscribe lay judges from handling criminal misdemeanors, leaving them only in the hands of attorney-judges.
Till that day....
8
JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED In my opinion, the framers of the Constitution gave the accused the right to see the evidence being held against them. I believe that meant that the accused had adequate time to mount a vigorous defense. Why States' rights overruled this crucial constitutional freedom looks just plain wrong on the face of it. I also wonder why the ACLU has not challenged these laws that deny equal access under the law. Yet another constitutional violation. I hope the situation is rectified soon. Not left in place to deprive citizens of their rights.
9
It is historically interesting to see how English and American justice evolved from "trial by combat" where god and right was on the side of the person who prevailed in a sword fight. You could hire a big armor clad knight to fight your fight and butcher the smaller person who could not afford a similar "advocate". This is now happens to the poor now in America with the public defender system a farce on fairness.
Fast forward 1000 years. We still have the adversarial system. The prosecutors value winning and being "tough" on crime. "Winning" is more important. Crime control and the presumption of guilt replaces due process and the presumption of innocence. See Packer's Two Model's of the Criminal Process.
European systems have mostly done away with the adversarial systems, excepting the English who invented it. Judges handle investigations and trials. Not the prosecutors who will do anything do win.
When did justice become synonymous with "winning" and conviction by any means? Only in America would it become so perverted. Innocent people who are not guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" are bludgeoned into admissions of guilt by threats of imprisonment and thus "bargain" away their rights in a farcical ceremony before a judge with the defendant "admitting" that the plea of guilty was not "coerced". The prosecutor does not then have to reveal how thin is the evidence. Clank goes the door to the cell. American Justice!
Fast forward 1000 years. We still have the adversarial system. The prosecutors value winning and being "tough" on crime. "Winning" is more important. Crime control and the presumption of guilt replaces due process and the presumption of innocence. See Packer's Two Model's of the Criminal Process.
European systems have mostly done away with the adversarial systems, excepting the English who invented it. Judges handle investigations and trials. Not the prosecutors who will do anything do win.
When did justice become synonymous with "winning" and conviction by any means? Only in America would it become so perverted. Innocent people who are not guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" are bludgeoned into admissions of guilt by threats of imprisonment and thus "bargain" away their rights in a farcical ceremony before a judge with the defendant "admitting" that the plea of guilty was not "coerced". The prosecutor does not then have to reveal how thin is the evidence. Clank goes the door to the cell. American Justice!
6
"European systems have mostly done away with the adversarial systems, excepting the English who invented it. Judges handle investigations and trials." Although it's truer to say that many civil-law systems have never embraced accusatorial systems, this does not necessarily work in the interests of the innocent. Once a Juge d'instruction in France, for instance, makes a prima facie finding of guilt against an accused the accused may be held virtually indefinitely. Neither inquisitorial nor accusatorial systems are perfect. The secret within each lies in the balance between accused and state: and under current English law it is not the duty of the prosecutor to convict at all costs.
1
Okay....you win.....America has the best system imaginable. Please justify the crime control model per Packer.
Can there be any reason at all to not support handing over all evidence immediately. Why wait till thirty days before trial, by which time, as the article points out, most plea bargains have bee concluded? To someone looking at this from outside the judicial system, it seems preposterous and unacceptable.
As to frightened witnesses--there are surely ways to communicate to the defendant at least the substance of what the witness has to say. If the identity of the witness is relevant, that should be communicated too. (One can imagine a situation in which a known mobster might be the defendant with the will and capacity to harm the witness. Perhaps special provisions can be made. But how often is that really the case?)
Radical reform--please.
As to frightened witnesses--there are surely ways to communicate to the defendant at least the substance of what the witness has to say. If the identity of the witness is relevant, that should be communicated too. (One can imagine a situation in which a known mobster might be the defendant with the will and capacity to harm the witness. Perhaps special provisions can be made. But how often is that really the case?)
Radical reform--please.
4
After 10 years as a public defender in this fine city of my birth, playing chicken with people's lives just became too much to bear. How could I counsel people without all the facts, at least as the ADA saw them? How could I explain why bail was set when my client was, in fact, the victim? No matter how fantastic my investigators (& they were), how could I (or my team) assimilate completely new material while picking a jury? I could walk away, but whole communities are still stuck in this awful system. The time for bail & discovery reform is way overdue.
52
I spent 40 years as a trial lawyer and except when I was first learning, I handled all civil cases some pretty big. In a civil case discovery is extensive and strictly enforced with sanctions and fines. Why? What is at stake is money and very often the trial lawyers are evenly matched. Big money is often at stake.
In a criminal case, or most of them by far, what is at stake is the freedom of a defendant. What are the motives here? The prosecutor is looking for promotion or a big reputation and most often he is up against a court appointed or other low paid young over worked legal aid lawyer with little money to investigate or time to make complex motions. The defendants, guilty or not guilty, are generally poor and cannot make bail. He is not a corporation or a bank or insurance company. The criminal defendant is on an assembly line with jail as the end product either before or after trial and these system is rigged against him.
I remember a cartoon in the New Yorker. It’s been around for over 40 years. A chubby lawyer is sitting behind a large desk looking at a would be client sitting in a straight back chair. Behind the lawyer is a bronze statute of Justice. The lawyer asks: “Tell me Mr. Jones, just how much justice can you afford?”
What we need is a Public Defenders Office where the Public Defender is staffed and funded like the DA’s office and one month an ADA is a prosecutor and next month an Asst. Public Defender, will we see any real change.
In a criminal case, or most of them by far, what is at stake is the freedom of a defendant. What are the motives here? The prosecutor is looking for promotion or a big reputation and most often he is up against a court appointed or other low paid young over worked legal aid lawyer with little money to investigate or time to make complex motions. The defendants, guilty or not guilty, are generally poor and cannot make bail. He is not a corporation or a bank or insurance company. The criminal defendant is on an assembly line with jail as the end product either before or after trial and these system is rigged against him.
I remember a cartoon in the New Yorker. It’s been around for over 40 years. A chubby lawyer is sitting behind a large desk looking at a would be client sitting in a straight back chair. Behind the lawyer is a bronze statute of Justice. The lawyer asks: “Tell me Mr. Jones, just how much justice can you afford?”
What we need is a Public Defenders Office where the Public Defender is staffed and funded like the DA’s office and one month an ADA is a prosecutor and next month an Asst. Public Defender, will we see any real change.
24
I have been involved in criminal justice as an advocate and a lobbyist since 1985. (Pretty much retired except for writing)
There are some rather shady prosecutors and practices at work in our "justice" system in America. This is but one.
Here are a few more that help fill prisons (often for profit) and that do not protect the public either from crime or taxes to pay for prisons.
1. High bail keeping accused in expensive taxpayer cells and costing jobs, homes and reputation even before there is a trial.
2. Over charging the suspect in order to "bargain" down to encourage a plea deal. Typically charges prosecutors know they have no evidence to support.
3. As seen in recent charges against officers in Baltimore, planting of evidence by police that prosecutors won't throw out unless caught red-handed.
4. Finding an innocent scape-goat to pin a high profile crime on to get the pubic off their backs. ( A man I know from Tampa was 15 hours from execution for a murder he did not commit. Supreme court stepped in at last minute and he went free. )
America is NOT the greatest in so many areas and we have too few patriots willing to accept fault and and work to fix those faults.
If you have interest of loved one inside the system check out
http://curenational.org
//
There are some rather shady prosecutors and practices at work in our "justice" system in America. This is but one.
Here are a few more that help fill prisons (often for profit) and that do not protect the public either from crime or taxes to pay for prisons.
1. High bail keeping accused in expensive taxpayer cells and costing jobs, homes and reputation even before there is a trial.
2. Over charging the suspect in order to "bargain" down to encourage a plea deal. Typically charges prosecutors know they have no evidence to support.
3. As seen in recent charges against officers in Baltimore, planting of evidence by police that prosecutors won't throw out unless caught red-handed.
4. Finding an innocent scape-goat to pin a high profile crime on to get the pubic off their backs. ( A man I know from Tampa was 15 hours from execution for a murder he did not commit. Supreme court stepped in at last minute and he went free. )
America is NOT the greatest in so many areas and we have too few patriots willing to accept fault and and work to fix those faults.
If you have interest of loved one inside the system check out
http://curenational.org
//
16
This is heart breaking. Truly.
2
As a criminal defense attorney in NYC for over thirty years, I can say that the state of criminal case discovery in New York is, in itself, criminal. Early discovery not only can help exonerate the innocent, but it can also convince the guilty to seek a settlement through plea bargaining and thereby lessen the burdens on the system as a whole.
Furthermore, if district attorneys are truly interested in avoiding wrongful convictions, as they often attest, then it seems to me that the best way to avoid these tragedies is to supply defense counsel with everything - and do it right away. Total information in the hands of experienced counsel is probably the best assurance against convicting the innocent.
Furthermore, if district attorneys are truly interested in avoiding wrongful convictions, as they often attest, then it seems to me that the best way to avoid these tragedies is to supply defense counsel with everything - and do it right away. Total information in the hands of experienced counsel is probably the best assurance against convicting the innocent.
31
There was a documentary shown here in Australia on the people who work to get a review/retail for people where the convictions appear to be 'unsafe'.
One State governor said in effect: The law guarantees you the right to a trial, it doesn't guarantee that you have to be guilty'.
And: 'I would rather see inocent men jailed than the law being bought into disrepute'.
One State governor said in effect: The law guarantees you the right to a trial, it doesn't guarantee that you have to be guilty'.
And: 'I would rather see inocent men jailed than the law being bought into disrepute'.
So this, the supposedly greatest country in the world, is "justice?"
I guess the "win at any cost" is what prosecutors go for. Even if it's at the cost of a human life.
Any lawyer, prosecutor or defense, who withholds evidence should be disbarred and never allowed to practice law anywhere in this country.
A total miscarriage of justice.
I guess the "win at any cost" is what prosecutors go for. Even if it's at the cost of a human life.
Any lawyer, prosecutor or defense, who withholds evidence should be disbarred and never allowed to practice law anywhere in this country.
A total miscarriage of justice.
9
Anyone who's worked in outside sales can tell you all about how quotas incentivize behavior. Especially quotas that are out of line with reality or are overly aggressive. So given that, how is acceptable that our police have quotas for writing tickets or for criminal convictions, and considering that they do in fact have those quotas, how can one believe that this DOESN'T drive false charges and false convictions? Our system is so clearly flawed that the real question isn't whether or not significant changes are needed, the real question is why haven't those changes happened and why isn't anyone making a serious effort to change our justice system?
Sadly, like most other areas of our society, the answer can be found by following the money.
Sadly, like most other areas of our society, the answer can be found by following the money.
9
This is so disheartening. Isn't the real win when someone who isn't guilty doesn't end up in jail? Have we deteriorated so much as a society that wins, like notches, are what passes for justice? Contemptible. Despicable. Pathetic.
17
My 30 yrs as a deputy public defender after 6yrs Army, taught me what as a welfare kid I already knew. I often told my clients what they already knew.
No justice, JUST US.
No justice, JUST US.
12
When the prosecutor's office become a racketeering operation, it's a clear sign you're residing in a 3rd world dictatorship.
America's police-prosecutor-prison-industrial-complex needs international help and psychiatric help from the civilized world.
What a disgrace to humanity.
America's police-prosecutor-prison-industrial-complex needs international help and psychiatric help from the civilized world.
What a disgrace to humanity.
41
Until I read this I was unsure about claims of "white privilege". Now I'm convinced that minorities, especially blacks and hispanics do not have a chance in the judicial process. Their fate is sealed.
I am ashamed and disgusted.
I am ashamed and disgusted.
36
Why do you think a poor white has a better chance than a rich minority? Significant wealth matters more than race.
Talk about a red herring!:
Jack Ryan, the chief assistant district attorney in the Queens district attorney’s office, recalled a recent case in which a witness was photographed on his way into the courthouse. "Before the witness even testified, that video was uploaded on Facebook identifying the guy as a snitch,” Mr. Ryan said. “There’s a legitimate fear."
Which has nothing to do with the claimed danger of requiring prosecutors hand over evidence they claim to have and will use in court if the defendant doesn't call their bluff. Such a requirement would not have stopped anyone from taking the video described in the above quote.
Jack Ryan, the chief assistant district attorney in the Queens district attorney’s office, recalled a recent case in which a witness was photographed on his way into the courthouse. "Before the witness even testified, that video was uploaded on Facebook identifying the guy as a snitch,” Mr. Ryan said. “There’s a legitimate fear."
Which has nothing to do with the claimed danger of requiring prosecutors hand over evidence they claim to have and will use in court if the defendant doesn't call their bluff. Such a requirement would not have stopped anyone from taking the video described in the above quote.
4
Correct. So who is also a victim when an innocent person is sent to jail to "protect" an innocent witness? Isn't the rule in prosecution not necessarily to get a conviction but to see that actual justice is done?
Somehow the notion that locking up one innocent via extortion is a justifiable act by the State who's claimed motivation is to protect someone else.
http://expendableamericans.com
Somehow the notion that locking up one innocent via extortion is a justifiable act by the State who's claimed motivation is to protect someone else.
http://expendableamericans.com
2
The system is corrupt. The lawyers are corrupt. The politicians are corrupt. The laws are written with great bias towards compelling the accused not to be considered innocent. People must prove their innocence as their is no presumption of innocence. Prosecutors are looking to score points for the number of guilty convictions they successfully prosecute even if an accused is known to be innocent. The system of bail is broken.
Why should anyone have faith in the justice system or process. If you're a minority and have no money you may as well just walk to prison and check in. You're doomed. Justice is only for the rich. Being white helps too.
Why should anyone have faith in the justice system or process. If you're a minority and have no money you may as well just walk to prison and check in. You're doomed. Justice is only for the rich. Being white helps too.
9
If there was a financial penalty against prosecutors for failing to disclose all evidence, wouldn't this problem disappear?
Our unethical justice system...imagine?
Our unethical justice system...imagine?
9
Needs to be more. A prosecutor who knowingly gets a conviction by foul means against an innocent should face the same amount of jail time. If a prosecutor sends a person to death for a crime they knew or had reason to know he did not commit should be charged with manslaughter for that innocent executed person.
8
Why manslaughter? Sounds like murder to me. Life in prison at least. Might be worse than execution.
What are we thinking in these cases? We are not thinking, that's the problem.
What are we thinking in these cases? We are not thinking, that's the problem.
1
Money = Justice
No Money = No Justice
No Money = No Justice
14
There is an old (TRUE) saying here, "America has the best justice money can buy"
4
The act of 'ambushing' defendants is not allowed in civilised countries. In the UK all 'disclosures' are exchanged prior to trial. Ambushing is very dramatic on TV buy it does nothing to ensure a fair trial.
12
The system of judging or rewarding or promoting prosecutors should not be based on the number or severity of successful convictions. They should be judged by how well justice is served. So if they have a case and drop it due to weak or contradictory evidence, the system should somehow reward them.
16
I am a retired career prosecutor and fully support discovery statutes that require early disclosure of evidence that will be used in trial. From a prosecutor's perspective, early disclosure usually hastens the negotiated resolution of cases because it allows most defendants to fully understand they will be convicted at trial, and it shortstops mental gymnastics on their part to convince themselves there is a way to escape the charges.
However, most discovery statutes are mutual and require the defense to disclose evidence also. That half of the bargain is routinely ignored, and courts seldom sanction defense attorneys for ignoring discovery obligations to the state. So prosecutors are reluctant, as I presume the are in NY, to give up discovery early in what they believe will be a one-way street---they will provide evidence to the defense, and the defense will be allowed by the court to flout their discovery obligations, putting the state in a tenuous position at trial.
However, most discovery statutes are mutual and require the defense to disclose evidence also. That half of the bargain is routinely ignored, and courts seldom sanction defense attorneys for ignoring discovery obligations to the state. So prosecutors are reluctant, as I presume the are in NY, to give up discovery early in what they believe will be a one-way street---they will provide evidence to the defense, and the defense will be allowed by the court to flout their discovery obligations, putting the state in a tenuous position at trial.
1
With the exception of wealthy and celebrity defendants, few accused have access to even a tiny fraction of resources compared to the State with respect to discovering and collecting exculpatory evidence.
I agree it must be shared fairly. But also if the prosecution has a lead and access to these resources, even an exculpatory lead should be pursued to it's conclusion before trial. The prosecutor should not see his role in the system to just get convictions, it should be to see that actual justice is done.
I agree it must be shared fairly. But also if the prosecution has a lead and access to these resources, even an exculpatory lead should be pursued to it's conclusion before trial. The prosecutor should not see his role in the system to just get convictions, it should be to see that actual justice is done.
3
Prosecutor French has it backwards. As s retired 30yr public defender I can tell you its the DA's who when violating CA discovery rules get a soft don't do it again. No justice JUST US.
1
Theoretically, it is up to the State to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence (beyond, I suppose, an alibi). If the defense is required to provide anything but exculpatory evidence to the State, it seems to me a violation of the 5th Amendment. "Better ten guilty go free than one innocent person be convicted."
2
Not having both sides present all the evidence before any plea is only way to insure the accused will have a fair trial. Too many prosecutors and police find it easy to with hold evidence which might throw their case in Of course when face with a wealthy opponent,and a platoon of high price lawyers most D.A.'s wilt It is why our prisons are filled with poor people
2
Frankly, the whole "justice"" system is disgusting... abd this is appalling. utterly deplorable -- and maybe Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama could go do some good for the country with this as a cause.
Frankly, many sentences are way too long. The conditions in prison foodwise I would imagine to be on par with nursing homes-- which means completely awful.. and frankly, prisoners all should work --40 hours a week. This in the case of "normal" criminals -- not mentally impaired or psychopathic. (work could include outdoor labor -- even agrculture -- and possibly on a chain gang. Or sewing machines-- made in SingSing could becoe a coveted label.
Jobs for people in prisons are often decent jobs... and the conditions could also be decent.
Everyone was once a baby and after that a child. What is it about the hormone testosterone that makes people insance/!!
Frankly, many sentences are way too long. The conditions in prison foodwise I would imagine to be on par with nursing homes-- which means completely awful.. and frankly, prisoners all should work --40 hours a week. This in the case of "normal" criminals -- not mentally impaired or psychopathic. (work could include outdoor labor -- even agrculture -- and possibly on a chain gang. Or sewing machines-- made in SingSing could becoe a coveted label.
Jobs for people in prisons are often decent jobs... and the conditions could also be decent.
Everyone was once a baby and after that a child. What is it about the hormone testosterone that makes people insance/!!
2
Prosecutors in this state and many others are out of control. They need to face criminal penalties for malfeasance and that means jail time.
The judicial system is poisoned beyond belief.
The judicial system is poisoned beyond belief.
10
New Yorkers shouldn't complain and really don't have a right to complain... afterall, they voted for the Liberals and Democrats who put the current system in place!
1
the lesser of 2 evils is still - evil.
"New York is one of 10 states where prosecutors can
wait until just before trial to share evidence, ... ."
Any chance you could add an addendum naming the other nine states for those of us not living in New York?
Thanks,
--Subscriber
wait until just before trial to share evidence, ... ."
Any chance you could add an addendum naming the other nine states for those of us not living in New York?
Thanks,
--Subscriber
23
Prosecutors seek to play a game, where they seek to levy harsh sentences on their defendants. They do what they can to what they see as racking up points. These are lives you are dealing with, and the law should not allow the presumption that they are guilty. People are naturally innocent until proven guilty. This fundamental rule for prosecutors is subverted by their intent to find intent of malice. But rarely is malice existing in the accused. More often than not, they are ignorant.
In attempting to prove intent, they plant evidence, hide evidence, and do what they can to frame the person. This attitude has to change. It's not your duty to punish the person. Any bias or prejudice is unwarranted when you are acting on behalf of the public. Only reasonable suspicion is permitted, and only upon discovering sufficient evidence should you impute any guilt, in your mind, and argue for such.
Education for potential criminal convicts should be priority for the justice system. Or else, you are emphasizing emergency care rather than preventative measures, which are admittedly less appealing for adventurous prosecutors or government officials.
In attempting to prove intent, they plant evidence, hide evidence, and do what they can to frame the person. This attitude has to change. It's not your duty to punish the person. Any bias or prejudice is unwarranted when you are acting on behalf of the public. Only reasonable suspicion is permitted, and only upon discovering sufficient evidence should you impute any guilt, in your mind, and argue for such.
Education for potential criminal convicts should be priority for the justice system. Or else, you are emphasizing emergency care rather than preventative measures, which are admittedly less appealing for adventurous prosecutors or government officials.
1
People aren't 'naturally' innocent, they're legally innocent until proven guilty.
1
It's obvious that the prosecuter lied and brought false charges. Too bad we can't put him in jail.
9
increase the penalties and prosecution for witness tampering. but anything remotely favorable to the defendant must be offered if we are true believer in innocent until proven guilty. it certainly shouldn't be based on the prosecutors comfort with the defense attorneys!
10
I used to believe that our justice system worked to ensure that only the guilty end up in prison. But then I became aware of the work that the innocence project does and I realized that our justice system is geared towards winning even if an innocent person ends up in jail. The United States has more people in prison than any other country in the world. We need to get our house in order and start providing adequate defense for everyone accused of a crime. Anyone of us could get caught up in our legal system and lose everything.
32
Forget minimum wages,we need minimum justice laws.
18
OMG. I cannot believe what I read in this article. The power of the state is huge and disadvantages accused people. The only way to level this is for the prosecution to hand over all their evidence. The standard is not whether the accused is guilty, but whether there is evidence to prove guilt. If you cannot see the evidence, how can you know. The American justice system is not justice and nothing to be proud of.
15
The extreme Left is so threated by speech with which "they," protested through destructive methods and are the one's (in the nation's largest city) contributing to the problem over prison overcrowding. OxyMORONIC, no?
___
"...Now, the politics show signs of shifting, and a renewed effort is underway to push the Legislature to overhaul state discovery rules, following the example of traditionally more conservative states such as North Carolina and TEXAS..."
Texas, 1854 miles of international river border and Defendant's (regardless of immigration status) rights are better protected.
___
"...Now, the politics show signs of shifting, and a renewed effort is underway to push the Legislature to overhaul state discovery rules, following the example of traditionally more conservative states such as North Carolina and TEXAS..."
Texas, 1854 miles of international river border and Defendant's (regardless of immigration status) rights are better protected.
I am a registered democrat and a former candidate for office as a democrat. Despite being the de facto party for minorities, the democrats are historically horrible on criminal justice issues for fear of being soft on crime. Despite other serious faults (like an inability to ever see a conflict of interest) former Justice Scalia is a prime example of a republican who still believed in individual liberties in the criminal justice system. (At least more than the Dems).
Gerald your point is well made. It's as though the City Works Dept. installed flashing yellow traffic lights at a 4-way major intersection.
In California all discovery must be turned over promptly, but there are restrictions on what the defense attorney can share with his ir her client, it being a misdemeanor for that attorney to disclose the address or phone number of any victim or witness.
11
What a major miscarriage of justice and cases that had evidence being withheld should have never been able to proceed to trial and the prosecutors shouldn't have never been able to offer plea deals know they withheld evidence that could help a defendant. All attorneys involved should be disbarred immediately. There should be no statute of limitations on prosecuting these kinds of prosecutors who knowingly and intentionally violated the constitutional rights of defendants just so they could make a name for themselves in the legal field. All impacted defendants should sue the prosecutors in civil court for all applicable damages due to the financial hardships and loss of housing and personal vehicles as a result of this insanity!
7
No, not disclosing all evidence in a case to a defendant is not unfair, it is outrageous. Have we still not got past the practices of the Inquisition?
11
There is no place for hide-and-seek in a civilized criminal justice system. In Canada, full disclosure at an early point is the rule. If prosecutors withhold something, they will have to justify it in relation to the specifics of the case. The following is a passage from a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada: (NOTE: In Canada, prosecutors are often referred to as Crown)
"21 This Court has clearly established that the Crown is under a general duty to disclose all information, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, except evidence that is beyond the control of the prosecution, clearly irrelevant, or privileged: Stinchcombe, supra, at p. 339; R. v. Egger, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451. The Crown obligation to disclose all relevant and non- privileged evidence, whether favourable or unfavourable, to the accused requires that the Crown exercise the utmost good faith in determining which information must be disclosed and in providing ongoing disclosure. Failure to comply with this initial and continuing obligation to disclose relevant and non-privileged evidence may result in a stay of proceedings or other redress against the Crown, and may constitute a serious breach of ethical standards. With respect to the latter, of necessity, great reliance must be placed on the integrity of the police and prosecution bar to act in the utmost good faith. It is for this reason that departures from this onerous obligation are treated as very serious breaches of professional ethics."
"21 This Court has clearly established that the Crown is under a general duty to disclose all information, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, except evidence that is beyond the control of the prosecution, clearly irrelevant, or privileged: Stinchcombe, supra, at p. 339; R. v. Egger, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451. The Crown obligation to disclose all relevant and non- privileged evidence, whether favourable or unfavourable, to the accused requires that the Crown exercise the utmost good faith in determining which information must be disclosed and in providing ongoing disclosure. Failure to comply with this initial and continuing obligation to disclose relevant and non-privileged evidence may result in a stay of proceedings or other redress against the Crown, and may constitute a serious breach of ethical standards. With respect to the latter, of necessity, great reliance must be placed on the integrity of the police and prosecution bar to act in the utmost good faith. It is for this reason that departures from this onerous obligation are treated as very serious breaches of professional ethics."
5
New York District Attorney's Offices: Law & Order or Criminal Intent?
2
When winning supplants the ethical pursuit of Justice...we're all in trouble, and we've been in trouble for a long long time.
7
I'm guessing, that in most of these cases, the lawyers are court appointed, and are, therefore, beholden to the judge, and not able to kick back too hard.
Before you insist that such a corrupt situation could not exist, ask yourself the question: "Would this happen to Sheldon Silvers lawyers?"
Unequally paid lawyers can never provide equal justice.
Before you insist that such a corrupt situation could not exist, ask yourself the question: "Would this happen to Sheldon Silvers lawyers?"
Unequally paid lawyers can never provide equal justice.
3
How dare you suggest that court-appointed attorneys and public defenders are somehow "beholden" to a judge, and our advocacy of our clients is less zealous because we don't get paid a retainer. It seems to me as if you didn't read this article. A majority of the attorneys mentioned in this piece are colleagues of mine from The Legal Aid Society, where we have consistently fought for discovery reform.
As a somewhat ironic aside re: Shelly Silver and being beholden to a court, you do know that Weitz and Luxenburg, the firm with which he was associated, went to a dedicated court part to have mesothelioma cases heard? Further, his criminal trial was in federal court, where discovery rules are different. I have no comment on his attorneys save to say that they did an excellent job and he certainly got his money's worth.
That said, despite the economic roadblocks we seemingly find ourselves up against year after year, our office does not sacrifice the defense of our clients in order to please prosecutors, judges, or anyone else. We represent our clients' best interests, period.
As a somewhat ironic aside re: Shelly Silver and being beholden to a court, you do know that Weitz and Luxenburg, the firm with which he was associated, went to a dedicated court part to have mesothelioma cases heard? Further, his criminal trial was in federal court, where discovery rules are different. I have no comment on his attorneys save to say that they did an excellent job and he certainly got his money's worth.
That said, despite the economic roadblocks we seemingly find ourselves up against year after year, our office does not sacrifice the defense of our clients in order to please prosecutors, judges, or anyone else. We represent our clients' best interests, period.
2
When we cooperate with bullies, then we only encourage them to bully us more. By entering into plea deals, we encourage prosecutors to pile on the charges in order to terrify us into pleading guilty to the lesser charges.
Governments and the media love to whip up a storm about the so-called terrorists. Even though the IRA came to kill my paternal great grandfather, too late because he had died the day before of natural causes, and I went to school with a boy murdered by an IRA bomb, I refuse to refer to such groups as terrorists because, for all their violence and cruelty, generally they lack the organisational capacity, manpower, munitions etc to terrify or terrorise the general populace,
The nationstate and its lackeys are another matter. The nationstate does have the power to terrorise its citizens. The first terrorist govemment of modern times was the terrorist government established during the French Terror by Robespierre and company. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea are all examples of terrorist states.
In many ways, the USA shares many of the traits of totalitarian, terrorist states such as these. The US police are almost all heavily armed and, when it comes to black men, women and children, often behave like a paramilitary occupying force.
If we ought not cooperate with terrorists, as we should not, then we should not enter into plea deals.
Governments and the media love to whip up a storm about the so-called terrorists. Even though the IRA came to kill my paternal great grandfather, too late because he had died the day before of natural causes, and I went to school with a boy murdered by an IRA bomb, I refuse to refer to such groups as terrorists because, for all their violence and cruelty, generally they lack the organisational capacity, manpower, munitions etc to terrify or terrorise the general populace,
The nationstate and its lackeys are another matter. The nationstate does have the power to terrorise its citizens. The first terrorist govemment of modern times was the terrorist government established during the French Terror by Robespierre and company. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea are all examples of terrorist states.
In many ways, the USA shares many of the traits of totalitarian, terrorist states such as these. The US police are almost all heavily armed and, when it comes to black men, women and children, often behave like a paramilitary occupying force.
If we ought not cooperate with terrorists, as we should not, then we should not enter into plea deals.
5
I would highlight this quote:
“What the defendant may not know is the strength of the prosecution’s case, and therefore how likely it is that he can ‘beat’ the charges despite his guilt,” wrote three prosecutors who dissented from the state bar association report.
What happened to the presumption of innocence? Since these prosecutors clearly do not understand the law, they should be disbarred. Perhaps these prosecutors could find comfort in the irony that in the name of deterrence both the innocent and the guilty are punished.
“What the defendant may not know is the strength of the prosecution’s case, and therefore how likely it is that he can ‘beat’ the charges despite his guilt,” wrote three prosecutors who dissented from the state bar association report.
What happened to the presumption of innocence? Since these prosecutors clearly do not understand the law, they should be disbarred. Perhaps these prosecutors could find comfort in the irony that in the name of deterrence both the innocent and the guilty are punished.
11
No, you don't understand the law. Prosecutors are not required to presume innocence. The finder of fact (the judge or jury) must presume innocence, which can be overcome by proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I understand the prosecution not wanting to revel witnesses whose lives may be in danger, but why withhold video evidence? And perhaps a judge should weigh the evidence of likely danger to witnesses?
2
NY residents, this could happen to you! And just like two of the men in this situation, whose lives were turned upside down by this mess, losing jobs, spending a long time in jail that didn't need to happen, you too could find yourself in a mess like this. This story, and the story published earlier this week, innocent people are entrapped in a legal quagmire, resulting in these people pleading to crimes they did not commit, just to get out of a nightmare.
Every NY resident needs to call their representatives and tell their representative to vote to pass this bill.
NY already has a problem of keeping people charged for crimes, not convicted of crimes, in jail, sometimes longer than a conviction would require. NY residents would pay far less for jailing people than is necessary, and could use their tax funds in more productive ways. Passing this legislation would be an added benefit to NY taxpayers
Remember, your innocent until proven guilty. In NY it appears the opposite because prosecutors make sure that people are guilty unless their late discovery can prove them innocent. Call your representative today.
Every NY resident needs to call their representatives and tell their representative to vote to pass this bill.
NY already has a problem of keeping people charged for crimes, not convicted of crimes, in jail, sometimes longer than a conviction would require. NY residents would pay far less for jailing people than is necessary, and could use their tax funds in more productive ways. Passing this legislation would be an added benefit to NY taxpayers
Remember, your innocent until proven guilty. In NY it appears the opposite because prosecutors make sure that people are guilty unless their late discovery can prove them innocent. Call your representative today.
6
Never mind the fact that because the public defender system is underfunded, and most public defenders hugely overworked, most defendants do not even receive decent counsel.
It doesn't make a difference if your lawyer receives all the evidence in the world if they don't have time to review it.
It doesn't make a difference if your lawyer receives all the evidence in the world if they don't have time to review it.
8
Judges actually do have leverage to force a prosecutor's hand. The state bar association can reprimand attorneys, but judges and attorneys must be willing to report them.
Unfortunately, attorneys are extraordinarily insular and are all too willing to look the other way, even in the face of behavior that contradicts an attorney's fiduciary duty.
Unfortunately, attorneys are extraordinarily insular and are all too willing to look the other way, even in the face of behavior that contradicts an attorney's fiduciary duty.
2
Unlike on tv, prosecutors are not interested in justice, only their careers.
35
What are the other states??
23
See California Penal Code Section 1054.1 et. seq.
Author Schwartzabfel should remember that the Times is a national newspaper.
Which are the other 9 states that also do not require evidence to be turned over in advance?
Which are the other 9 states that also do not require evidence to be turned over in advance?
39
This article is in the N.Y./Region section of the paper.
A comment by a old Canuck : you guys are 20 years behind us on that subject.
Why don't you come up for a few days and look at how we disclose the evidence ?
Why don't you come up for a few days and look at how we disclose the evidence ?
30
Where are the nine other states that allow discovery to be held back until just before trial?
25
The founding fathers must be turning in their graves.
For every step forward the country takes two steps backward. Basic human rights are now being denied and institutionalized fascism is becoming a pervasive form of government — from the White House on down,
For every step forward the country takes two steps backward. Basic human rights are now being denied and institutionalized fascism is becoming a pervasive form of government — from the White House on down,
27
One of the main reasons I would NEVER vote for the death penalty.
Corrupt judges, prosecutors and police have helped murder many innocent defendants.
George Ryan, the Republican governor of Illinois, found so much corruption in the Illinois penal system that he commuted ALL death sentences in his state.
The same should occur throughout the entire United States because the death penalty can NEVER be administered fairly in our corrupt justice system.
Corrupt judges, prosecutors and police have helped murder many innocent defendants.
George Ryan, the Republican governor of Illinois, found so much corruption in the Illinois penal system that he commuted ALL death sentences in his state.
The same should occur throughout the entire United States because the death penalty can NEVER be administered fairly in our corrupt justice system.
57
The problem with your position is that capital cases actually get many more resources to defend the guilt phase and the sentence phase. there is an automatic appeal staffed by experienced lawyers, there is a higher scrutiny by the appeals courts, etc. then there is the federal habeas process afterward. Very little of this happens for non-capital cases with just life imprisonment.
1
Fred you live in Missouri where public defenders, like retired me have the highest case loads and close to the lowest funding per case. Think again.
Our "justice" system is appalling on so many levels
8
Gee. And when I was growing up we were taught and even heard on TV drama series that it was the endeavor of a prosecutor to see that "justice" was done and not just to "win" convictions. How naive can you be?
9
As a citizen, I don't sleep better at night with high numbers of convictions, some of which are the wrong people. How can prosecutors sleep better at night racking up convictions, knowing exactly which ones are being railroaded? How can judges sleep at night, knowing how little control they have over their courtroom proceedings?
2
The withholding of evidence from a defendant is unconstitutional. Releasing it at the last minute guarantees that the defendant will not get a fair trial. Prosecutors should be ashamed of this practice. If they were honest and ethical there would be no need for this law. Unfortunately, in my 20 plus years as a Criminal Defense Attorney I have found that very few Prosecutors care about fairness and truth. If someone is arrested they are guilty, If there is evidence that points to innocence, it is hidden far too often. At the same time most Prosecutors are good people but I've never understand how. as good people. they are willing to play dirty tricks to get a conviction.
67
Retired public defenders know clients get no justice, JUST US.
Prosecutors are humans, and therefore respond to the incentives
Good people do not subvert the truth. Rethink your definition of good. Or perhaps I an conflating good with ho honorable.
Never plead guilty. Never enter into a plea deal. Never make a confession to the police, or let the police force you into an interview. Never lie. Say nothing at all times. Maintain a polite and dignified silence.
Have your day in court, let the jury hear the evidence put before them. If you are convicted of the most serious charges, then take your punishment like a man.
Let justice be done and be seen to be done at all times.
Have your day in court, let the jury hear the evidence put before them. If you are convicted of the most serious charges, then take your punishment like a man.
Let justice be done and be seen to be done at all times.
7
Indeed and ask for an attorney!
Oh, if it were only that simple. Did you not read the article?
1
My thoughts are on it is like this both sides need to show their evidence instead of withholding till the last minute.
3
From my experience, the police, and associated criminal INJUSTICE systems, compose the largest and most dangerous criminal gang in the world.
7
What are the 8 other states mentioned in the article but not in the text?
4
What is wrong with these highly educated Lawyers? They act like they are defect prison guards and we are all inmates. This crazed culture needs to be addressed. Disgusting and terrible.
3
Sounds like prosecutors only want to boost their numbers and are not interested in putting real criminals behind bars. They stink. Laws definitely need to be changed to protect the accused. The accused have rights.
Prosecutors stink. Big time.
Prosecutors stink. Big time.
3
Where I work witness statements have been turned over to the defense and within hours the statements and the witnesses names have been posted on social media. In one case the statement of a witness was turned over to the defense, his statement was posted on Facebook. A year and half later he was shot and killed outside a bar. He was killed for "snitching". His murder happened in front of over 30 people, NOT ONE person was willing to give us a statement or testify. How do we know? We have video of the murder that shows all the people there. We tracked them down they all stated "I wasn't paying attention, I didn't see anything". Whats the answer I don't know, but I'm not optimistic about the future.
10
what cold hearted person from your agency would do such a thing?! That's so wrong! That evidence is confedential and should have never been posted on social media. All these idiots that are loyal to the streets with that no snitching metality will be singing another tune when faced with life in prison or the death penalty.
Yes, but by that logic, we would have secret trials. Per Brady, the Constitution mandates the disclosure of discovery material to the defense, with reasonable restrictions on its further dissemination being also warranted.
Thus in California the address and phone number of any alleged victim or witness cannot be given to the client, although the attorney may retain that information for use by his investigator. Absent any specific rule or court order, the posting of such statements on social media as you describe could only be viewed as an attempt to dissuade a witness, a felony.
Thus in California the address and phone number of any alleged victim or witness cannot be given to the client, although the attorney may retain that information for use by his investigator. Absent any specific rule or court order, the posting of such statements on social media as you describe could only be viewed as an attempt to dissuade a witness, a felony.
1
Where do you work because the whole point of the story is that NY does not turn over the evidence. If you make the defense attorney criminally liable for the confidentiality of the names and addresses we might also get rid of some of that garbage as well.
1
First, all evidence should be handed over to the defense before a suspect is allowed to plead guilty. Second, prosecutorial immunity needs to go. If a prosecutor, who is charged with making sure that people obey the rules, cannot do the same himself then he needs to be punished accordingly.
107
I guess you never heard of civil service, try firing a teacher or any other incompetent individual working for the gov't.
1
The writer states "New Jersey and Utah now require that discovery be provided before a guilty plea." The statement is ambiguous and incorrect. Since the 1970s, prosecutors in New Jersey routinely disclose to defense counsel police reports, witness statements, test results, photograph arrays, confessions and grand jury minutes. The disclosure is made, upon request, after indictment. Yes, of course, discovery is provided before a guilty plea is taken. The larger point though is that no defense attorney would even consider allowing the client to plead guilty without having first reviewed with the client the discovery provided by the State.
5
You're assuming, however, that every defendant receives competent counsel, which is most certainly not the case.
Just as anyone who has had to rely on overworked and underpaid public defenders. They are forced to handle so many cases that they often walk into courtrooms having done nothing more than read the case file, if that.
Just as anyone who has had to rely on overworked and underpaid public defenders. They are forced to handle so many cases that they often walk into courtrooms having done nothing more than read the case file, if that.
2
As is all too often the case, prosecutors are more interested in putting more notches on their gun than administering justice. This is a national mindset and must change. Perhaps let the judge decide what evidence needs to be turned over to defense council. Then, if that order is not complied with fully, contempt charges should be issued.
47
This is an outgrowth of not only reputational and remuneration concerns but also of the adversarial trial system itself. That posting on courts' walls "Those who labor here seek only the truth." Yeah sure.
1
The Supreme Court of Canada has made discovery the rule of the land. Police or other investigating authority (such as securities regulators) are required to provide copies of evidence to the defence not long after charges are filed. Late disclosure will sometimes result in a postponement of the trial. Some police chiefs have complained about the burden but the benefits appear to outweigh the cost to the police. The only egregious instance of difficulty which I can recall was an obnoxious barrister who demanded that the Ontario Securities Commission provide his client's disclosure on paper rather rather on indexed digital media.
The article stated that "[m]ore than two months after Ms. Bruan’s initial request, the prosecutor wrote that the video 'does not show anything/is corrupted,' an email shows. That prosecutor should be prosecuted, disbarred and never be allowed to practice law - for dishonesty, lying and deception.
And that's coming from me, a practicing attorney with 35+ years of experience.