I strongly support the new discovery rules. Many jurisdictions around the US, including Texas, require prosecutors to turn over their evidence in a timely matter. It is designed to level the playing field and not allow prosecutors unfair leverage in obtaining plea deals. It also prevents skirting around the Brady rule which has been a repeated problem in NY. This is just basic fairness. The police and prosecutors who have the means to obtain evidence. Most people cannot afford to hire their own investigators. Like everyone out there I want the guilty to be punished and the innocent to be let go. This rule bends us toward that goal.
Having said my basic support for the policy goal, there was a definite failure here either on the part of the judge, the prosecutors or the police in not protecting a witness. They can blame the rule but the rule doesn't excuse protecting a witness. Past experience teaches us that when dealing with organized crime (and MS13 is organized crime) they often intimidate and harm witnesses. The identity of Mr. Rodriguez should never have been disclosed and the rule specifically protects witnesses who can be targets.
9
Hello, PD here. Just overheard this in court with those who don't understand why "adequate contact information" soon after arraignment is important.
Judge: Why haven't you given over adequate contact information?
DA: We are having issues getting that?
Judge: Why?
DA: The complaining witness is incarcerated in Pennsylvania.
PD: And when were the People planning on telling us THAT?
3
we must not overturn a well thought out law that hoped to somewhat level the playing field based on the horrific killing of a witness. We have done that for sooooo many years....legislate by abberation. Don't harm the rights of all because of one act.
10
Let's open our borders up. Democrats still wonder why Trump was elected president AND acquitted?
17
The chickens are coming home to roost.
13
Liberals -- and I say this as one -- are stupid. This law is the perfect example of why Republicans will win in November, even if they are not fit to lead. Liberals and progressives take up causes that the vast majority of people don't want or don't care about. Seriously. Are convicted criminals a strong voting bloc? WHAT was NY thinking? No one will ever testify as long as this gift to criminals is on the books.
32
The criminal lobby wins again. Um, hooray?
19
Trump promised to do something about MS13. So far, Nothing. Trump does not care about you
6
@Bill I know, because Governor Cuomo certainly does not attempt to thwart him every waking moment.
9
Furor should erupt over this poorly reported article. Why is "Commissioner Ryder sought to clarify his remarks in a statement issued later, saying there was 'no direct link between the death of Wilmer Maldonado Rodriguez and criminal justice reform,'" in the *seventeenth* paragraph?
3
"Supporters of the revised laws have countered that law enforcement officials and other critics are fear-mongering and cherry-picking negative stories to undermine public support for the bail and other changes."
Sure there are cases like this, and it sounds as if the judge in this case made a poor call, but.... It's always possible to pick out shocking examples if you want to stir people up. I could give you several shocking examples of killers who were blond, so should blond people be kept in prison for years? We have to look at the statistics and make reasonable decisions based on that, not make public policy choices based on anecdotes.
1
This sad story is the evidence that the binary view that ALL arrested people should be free on bail, without judicial review, and the new discovery rule is NAIVE and BINARY. The Exception proves the rule. People who are BINARY can't deal with a process for exceptions. Everything is BLACK or White. Unfortunately, now some is dead because of the ABSOLUTISM of BINARY thinking. Liberals and conservatives are afflicted with this mental weakness. There is no middle ground. The people read PLATO about TRUTH, ETC but they should read Aristotle about the Golden Mean!
6
This has NOTHING to do with the law. The judge, Helene Gugerty, was under NO OBLIGATION to release the witness' information. She should be investigated as her decision suggest extremely poor judgment to say the least. What a tragedy and an assault to justice the murder of Mr. Rodriguez is. Shame on the judge, the gang's lawyers and the mediocre protection this brave man received.
11
@MC
Its difficult to discern the facts of this case from the press. That's true whether we are criticizing or defending the judge's decision in this case.
What's undeniable is that the new law creates a duty to disclose contact information of witnesses as a default, and that the prosecutors have to secure permission from a court to withhold that information. That alone is incredibly dangerous and will undermine witness cooperation with law enforcement. Why cooperate with law enforcement against violent defendants when your safety can't be guaranteed? Whether or not a judge's poor decision can be blamed doesn't matter when you're dead.
6
Well, this is shocking.
MS - 13 killing witnesses against them?
No amount of foresight could have helped here....
Thank goodness for Resident Trump's tweet.
All better now.
1
Yet another article in the NYT’s ongoing efforts to develop sympathy for criminals and make it appear that criminals are actually victims.
To set the record straight, victims of crimes are the true victims, the perpetrators—and those who aid, abet and participate in crime with them—are criminals. I hope all the progressive prosecutors--and Democratic Presidential candidates--will give serious thought to what it means to eliminate bail, reduce sentences and allow criminals to run loose in our communities.
Who is responsible for post-release crimes committed by those released early? An apology to their future victims will be of small consolation for those who are harmed; and how about compensation and restitution for the actual victims?
Early release or release without bail of thousands of criminals is a recipe for increased crime, and increased numbers of victims. (Check federal statistics of recidivism rates—very sobering.)
Why doesn't the NYT run a long series of articles about how victims' lives have been harmed--or shattered--or taken--by criminals? Pretty easy to develop sympathy for victims, I should think.
Virtually no criminals are forced to commit their crimes; there is such a thing as free will. It's simple:
Just don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
24
Its clear they tried to kill him the first time around. If repeatedly stabbing someone and bashing them in the head isn't attempted murder, what is? THIS is where the problem with the justice system began. Why were they only charged with assault?
11
This article and the reaction to it by many of the comments is really disturbing. First, as the article states, the identity of the witness was disclosed to defense counsel before the discovery reform came into force on 1/1/2020. Moreover, after having asserted, without factual support, a link between the new law and this dreadful killing, the Nassau police comm'r walked back his unfounded claim. So there is no "factual" basis for blaming discovery reform for the awful death of the witness. Yet the reporters include the insinuations to the same effect by the Nassau and Orange County DA's! What is the factual basis for their assertions? Apparently none is required by the Times.
But it's effective just to put it out there so that some commenters could parrot the false narrative. They must have some inside information that the rest of us don't have, as they confidently pass judgment on the new law, and accuse defense counsel of unethical conduct by supposedly violating the protective order. Their minds are made up, don't try to confuse them with the facts!
Discovery reform in New York Criminal cases was long overdue. Forty of the 50 states, including so-called "tough on crime" states such as Texas (yes Texas!) and Florida had already moved to "open file discovery" in criminal cases, while New York adhered to what can only be called a regime of "trial by ambush."The change was needed, it was well thought out, and it was the right thing to do. Fairness of the process matters.
1
This law is so absurd it defies belief.
That judge cost that man his life.
11
The law is insane. What is even more insane is keeping it.
12
The data shows that all sorts of crimes in NYC such as assault, theft etc have climbed since this law was enacted; several months prior evidently it started to go into effect. I recall that the woman who assaulted random Orthodox Jews on the street got arrested and let right out again and proceeded to assault more.
I don't get it. Is this law some kind of new feel-good law? What about the rights of the public? Why don't they count?
13
@Greenie You get the prize for being the first person ever to link the supposed spike in crime to the implementation of Discovery Reform in N.Y. Brilliant!
1
Supporters of sanctuary cities say they are necessary so that illegals won’t be afraid to help the police and come forward with information. No one, legal or illegal, will want to risk their life to help the police now. Trump will ride this story and others like it to victory on Election Day.
10
It's unthinkable that a defense lawyer could be corrupt. If the justice system fails to protect society then society will eventually turn to vigilante methods.
16
To all the "progressive" lawmakers who think this law change is a good idea (and to the public defender below who really thinks the information is released to the defendant's attorney only and it cannot possible get to the defendants), here's a progressive idea for you to mull over. When we release these criminals early, without bail and without regard to innocent witnesses such as the man who was murdered in this case, why not have the state offer housing to these criminals right next door to the homes of some of these progressive legislators and their family members? Maybe they can get together for coffee, dinner, cocktails or maybe just a friendly hug? They seem so concerned about these criminals, why not put them in close proximity to the people they seem most concerned about? I am sure it would help them understand the issue better.
39
@RB would happily live next door to my clients. Why don't you just come out and say what is underlying all of this fearmongering: you don't believe in the presumption of innocence and think anyone accused of a crime is guilty of it. Just embrace that you disagree with the bedrock principle of the American legal system - it will save a lot of time!!
5
@RB you hit it spot on. No disagreement here.
7
@Milly Oh, I fully support innocent until proven guilty. It's the very reason why I think these folks would be fine to reside next to the legislators looking out for their welfare. Should not cause them any concern to have these upstanding individuals next door. Don't you think those legislators and their family members would agree? I would be more than happy to direct more of my state taxes to effect this outcome. But I don't think you will find too many of these legislators warming to this arrangement. I can't imagine why.
8
Hi, public defender here. The law specifically allows for the release of witness names to the defense attorneys *only* - meaning we are ethically and legally bound to keep that information to ourselves, for the express purpose of protecting witnesses from possible retribution. No defense attorney would risk her license and disclose this information for one single case to get a "win" at trial, especially if that means a human being dies?? We are not in a mob movie.
What happened here is absolutely tragic but it has nothing to do with the discovery laws. It also bears noting that 46 other states in this country have the same discovery laws, and that our Constitution guarantees the right to confront and know your accuser. The sky is not falling. Shame on the commissioner for his blatant lies and misrepresentations.
14
You don’t have to intend to give the names of the witnesses to the defendant. What would a defense attorney do with the information? If an investigator shows up at the defendant’ home, school or place of business don’t you think MS-13 will figure out that he is a witness. Also as a defense attorney, you wouldn’t ask your client what would this person testify to? What is your relation to him? Do you know him or is he a stranger to you? Would you be doing your job if you didn’t ask these question? These laws have put the defense bar in a dad position also.
3
@Milly "The sky is not falling."
I'm sure Mr. Rodriguez would disagree with you if he could.
11
@Milly -- Hi, former prosecutor here. You're absolutely right, there's never been a dirty defense attorney, ever, particularly those that are on the payroll of organized crime. Sure.
10
Do you really think he was going to be safe after the trial? He needed the witness protection program if he planned to testify at all. Right from the start. He should have been discouraged from testifying if he did not. This seems obvious.
22
Seems very suspicious to me.
Why would the judge allow a postponement after revealing the protected witnesses identity to the defense?
Seems like a common sense to me that once the protected identity was revealed, no postponements could be allowed for any reason.
15
New York really needs to rethink this law.
Yes you have a right to face your accuser but that should be at the trial, not before hand.
36
@BTO The judge had the right to redact the name or to give it to the lawyer but keep it from the defendant.
The current law gives him that right.
This was an error in judgement. Not in the law.
6
The judge and defendant's lawyers have blood on their hands.
57
@newyorktimez what about the legislature?
6
Why would anyone testify against a criminal with this new law in place?
46
@Justanne
It's not the law.
The law explicitly gives the judge the right to redact witness names. He can also expose them to the defendant's attorney and explicitly keep them from the defendant.
This is not the law. The is the judge.
8
I took an uber driven by a middle aged man in Florida this week. Learning I was from New York he launched into a conversation about this new, "liberal", law that "frees criminals." True or not, unless the public at large is convinced this new law is based on real commonsense and sound principles and is supported by law enforcement, it will be used as a VERY effective cudgel by Republicans and Trump. Just as they effectively hijacked the immigration issue to their advantage, the Right will use this "reform" to win elections in New York and nationally. Remember Willy Horton? This is going to seem worse. Winning the battle and losing the war is a Democratic specialty. If there are any loopholes or weaknesses in this well-intentioned law, Cumo and the Democrats better plug them quickly and VERY publicly!
40
@Overton Window Pretty ironic that the person who made the comment was from Florida. In Florida, not only do they get witness contact information, defense attorneys are permitted to depose witnesses in criminal cases. New York's laws were draconian in comparison. And to be clear, the order in the case here was issued under the old law.
3
If this is an example of progressive results, there is no way anyone to the left of Trump will get elected this November.
49
Reminding everyone how NYC elected and re-elected America's mayor, Rudolph Giuliani.
24
“There is absolutely no way this is related to the discovery laws,” Ms. Schreibersdorf said, adding that she had spoken to some of the lawyers in the case.
So let me get this right. Some Legal Aid attorney making peanuts gets assigned a case defending a violent gang member, the judge discloses the name of the witness who will be testifying against said violent gang member, witness ends up dead, and we are supposed to believe this is coincidence?
What would you do if you were the attorney and the gang member said give me the witness' name, or else there are going to be problems for you or your family?
Rather than denying the obvious, it would seem that the lawmakers need to go back to the drawing board on this legislation post haste. Sadly it is too late for Mr. Rodriguez and his loved ones. It doesn't have to be for the next person.
74
@CTR Hi, public defender here. The law specifically allows for the release of witness names to the defense attorneys *only* - meaning we are ethically and legally bound to keep that information to ourselves, for the express purpose of protecting witnesses from possible retribution. No defense attorney would risk her license and disclose this information for one single case to get a "win" at trial, especially if that means a human being dies?? We are not in a mob movie.
What happened here is absolutely tragic but it has nothing to do with the discovery laws. It also bears noting that 46 other states in this country have the same discovery laws, and that our Constitution guarantees the right to confront and know your accuser. The sky is not falling. Shame on the commissioner for his blatant lies and misrepresentations.
5
@Milly Hi Milly, I'm not arguing with the written intent of the law, but rather it's practical application. I understand that most public defenders and attorneys will strive to follow the law as written, but in reality, this may be harder to do when the defense attorney is threatened to reveal the identity of the witness. No, it's not a movie, but it's also not a stretch to imagine such a scenario. You mention the self interest of retaining your license. What's more motivating? Possibly losing your license or your life? Granted, this likely won't be an issue in the vast majority of cases, but still it's possibility.
7
@CTR sure, it's a possibility, and I appreciate your measured response. I just think it's by far the exception to the rule in practicality, and it's also not the reason behind this tragic death. have a great day!
1
The timing of the disclosure of Mr. Rodriguez's name was likely less consequential (in itself) than the fact that it was disclosed at all.
Recall that he was not some mere second-hand observer-type witness; he was the victim in the initial stabbing and beating that resulted in charges being filed. Removing the protective order left Mr. Rodriguez fully-exposed to further victimization, and that's precisely what happened.
If the judge was acting out of concern for the defendants, perhaps she won't mind sharing a cell with them.
66
This article notes reformers' (correct) perspective that "law enforcement officials and other critics are fear-mongering and cherry-picking negative stories to undermine public support for the bail and other changes." It then turns, in the very next sentence, to fear-mongering and cherry-picking negative stories. Thanks, NYT! Furthering justice and equality as usual.
4
@Anon "cherry-picking negative stories"
They are 'cherry-picking' murders. It's ok to show negative consequences for anything but especially when someone is actually murdered because of them.
This is pretty outrageous that the new reforms were in any way blamed for an order issued prior to the new laws taking effect.
Indeed, the new laws provide a multilevel mechanism for either the People or defense attorneys to obtain orders protecting evidence from disclosure and an expedited process of appeal where a trial judge disagrees. Arguably, if the People had followed the new process, the trial judge's order here may have been overturned on the expedited appeal to the appropriate appellate court. By expedited, the People could have been before an appeals court justice within 2 days. It is truly unfortunate that that DA's office has spent more time criticizing the law than they have in training their assistants how the new law works.
9
This is exactly why witnesses are likely to not come forward and aid authorities. This is tragic. Cannot but help feel that the criminals are better protected.
33
It seems that recent New York State laws are protecting the criminals more than protecting law-abiding citizens. Sanctuary cities, no cash bail, releasing witness information to defendants through their attorneys all serve to harm criminal justice and endanger law-abiding citizens lives and property and well-being. I know New Yorkers hate Donald Trump but this is going to far! Once upon a time the Democratic Party supported law and order and then Donald Trump came along and everything changed.
Even stop and frisk was eliminatedWhile it was meant to protect law-abiding citizens.
What happened to Law and order?
44
@Pete Drexler Please see my comment above. Under the new laws, the DA's office could have appealed the judge's order within 2 days, a process not available at the time because the new laws had not gone into effect
.
6
You can expect to hear a lot more about this tragic case from Republicans between now and November. It weaves together the naïveté of the left on matters of criminal justice and immigration and dramatically illustrates the tragic consequences. In light of the Russian collusion nonsense, the impeachment debacle, the Iowa caucuses embarrassment, the cynical, nasty behavior of the House Speaker and the deeply flawed Democrat frontrunners, it’s a good time To ask whether the Democrats can actually do anything right. The answer at this point seems to be no.
34
@ehillesum I'll add that most of the victims of this Progressive madness will be law-abiding people of color - the very people Progressives claim to be championing.
4
@ehillesum I profoundly dislike Trump and think he is a disgrace for our country. But surely what happened to Mr. Rodriguez is awful and will highlight the need to get MS-13 gang members behind bars and prevent more of these criminals from coming to the U.S. The judge decision almost suggest she's working for MS-13. She should ne investigated. What a tragedy.
3
Wouldn't have to protect witnesses from MS-13 gang members if we didn't let MS-13 gang members into our country. Sanctuary cities/states need to End.
55
@GregP
MS-13 gangs started IN the country, in L.A. prisons.
Learn about how our government, thanks to Regan, has blood on its hands for what we did in El Salvador in the 1980s.
4
Justice is only for the rich.
9
I believe this law and this murder will give Trump lots of ammunition for his re-election campaign. And he sure has a point.
59
Surely there’s a middle ground between permitting the withholding of witnesses’ identifies until the even of trial and mandating their disclosure 15 days after arraignment.
Why would anyone possibly report a crime to the police under the current system, unless absolutely necessary?
26
@zigmund There is a middle ground. The new laws provide a mechanism that can prevent the release of any evidence. The old laws did not. Let's be clear, the order here was issued under the old laws.
6
@zigmund Not even when absolutely neccessary.
If you have a family, the best thing would be to flee the area and hope the criminal doesn't notice as currently the police have their hand tied. Crime around my area has growth up to 30-40% since January
2
The law requires that "adequate contact information" for all civilian witnesses -- and potential witnesses -- be provided to defense within 15 days of the defendant's arraignment. Prosecutors may seek a protective order to shield this information upon a showing of "good cause." What this effectively means is within just 15 days of receiving a case, often having very little understanding of the crime, prosecutors have to obtain sufficient information about the defendant or his associates in order to convince a judge to keep a witness's identity confidential. This is in addition to the absurd amount of materials the prosecutor also has to obtain, review, and then turn over to defense within that 15 days while simultaneously presenting the case to grand jury to get an indictment. It is impossible; the statute sets prosecutors up to fail and puts witnesses and the public at risk.
If the judge isn't convinced by the prosecutor's application for a protective order, the judge can deny it and order disclosure of witnesses' identities.
Make No Mistake: witnesses to crimes in New York should be on notice that their confidentiality is not guaranteed. What happened in Long Island yesterday will surely happen again if the legislature does not act now. Repeal the laws and let assistant district attorneys do their jobs.
80
@PE How is your post relevant to this case when the crime occurred in October of 2018 and Wilmer Rodriguez was killed this month Feb 2020. Obviously the new rules were not in effect when the defendant was arraigned. They even had a protective order for Rodriguez in December of 2018, but then the judge ordered Rodriguez identity disclosed for unknown reasons in December of 2019. This is entirely on the judge.
People making this about the new laws are way off base. This is another opportunistic strike against a set of laws that are well thought out and have lasting positive consequences for our absurd prison system.
7
@PE "this is in addition to the absurd amount of materials the prosecutor also has to obtain, review, and then turn over to defense within that 15 days while simultaneously presenting the case to grand jury to get an indictment."
You do understand that this legislation was drafted based on the discovery laws of 46 other states in this country? Texas has been doing this for years, so have other more "conservative" states. Prosecutors in NY have had it easy for a long time in terms of having the deck stacked in their favor. Sorry you have to do more work; you should remember who the constitution protects and why. Your job is to secure justice, not to game the system and hide evidence from the accused.
4
@Milly
That's incorrect. Texas's law mandates that all discovery is "attorney's eyes only" unless certain exceptions are met. In addition, the discovery must be turned over "as soon as practicable" and there is no set deadline. I know of no other state that imposes such a drastic deadline on when materials must be provided to defense counsel.
The issue is not about having to do more work. It's about an arbitrary and impossible deadline that we can't meet and that compromises the integrity of cases, investigations, and the safety of the public. The results are clear and they will only get worse.
8
Journalistic malpractice to close the piece on a Trump quote. If we’re accusing criminal justice reform opponents of fear-mongering, the fact that DJT also fear-mongers is not relevant, unless he’s taken a position on NY’s criminal justice reform, which he hasn’t.
It’s obfuscation to smear opponents of the new law as being Trump-aligned.
30
It was unnecessary to the article, and detracts from the discussion of themerits of the change, and how in fact to protect those witnesses who may be at serious risk.
10
Conflating the witness identification rule with this horrible murder is really mixing apples and oranges.
The DA admits that they have no idea who might have divulged the witnesses name to gang members. But despite this lack of information they then imply that it has something to do with the witness identification law.
What is clear from this and the recent attacks on bail reform is that many in law enforcement halve become comfortable with failing to comply with basic constitutional standards.
While the constitution is silent on specific issues like witness identification, the due process clause is the protective umbrella that all of our criminal process laws should be based.
Let the law stand and let the trained criminologists review the data a year from now and see what we have achieved and wher adjustments might be warranted.
2
Regardless of whether this witness was killed as a direct result of the new law, the consequence of this law will be remarkable: new witnesses against MS-13 and other vicious defendants will be hard to find. Who would want to take a chance? Who would want to place their family's lives at risk? This law hands the criminals yet another weapon and disarms the law-abiding members of society.
74
A defendant’s right to confront people testifying against them is sacrosanct. The right is not meaningful if the defendant is told the identity of the witness on the eve of trial. Protective orders are meaningless to M-13. The only way to protect the health and safety of witness like Mr. Rodriguez is to give them 24/7 police bodyguards or put them in protective custody.
Of course, this would be hideously expensive, but not all witness will need this level of protection. Witnesses in cases involving M-13 obviously need protection, but not all witnesses for the prosecution will. It will have to be decided on a case by case basis. I suspect very few witnesses will need this level of protection.
8
It should be the DA's responsibility to protect witnesses. They should value the witness' safety and well-being above all else. If Ms. Singas could not protect the witness then she should have removed him as a witness and never have disclosed his name. Instead, it seems she prioritized winning the case without regard for the potential consequences to the witness. I suspect this is not the first time.
3
@JS Re-read the article - the DA's office initially had a protective order, but a judge negated it by ordering disclosure. It was the judge who had no regard for the potential consequences to the witness -- and I suspect this is not the first time.
56
@janeqpublicma If you are right, that Judge is a murderer. Let's go to his or her Facebook. Everyone should know that this judge had the power to protect an innocent soul, but willing and intentionally decided not to.
8
The original assault happened in 2018 and nothing happened to this man until 2020 when his name was handed over to the defense.
I don’t think the issue will be that the defense attorneys will turn over the names of witnesses directly to the defendants but in the course of preparing their case they will send investigators and make inquiries that may give away their identity to the accused or associates of the accused. In preparing for the case will they not ask their client about what they believe the witness will testify to? To me there is very little distinction between giving the names to the defense attorneys or directly to the defendant.
41
In spite of Commissioner Ryder's remarks there was, in fact, a direct link between Mr. Rodriguez's death and criminal justice reform.
We must not become so interested in protecting the accused that we forget to protect witnesses, victims and the general public.
113
@Neil
Yet another article in the NYT’s ongoing efforts to develop sympathy for criminals and make it appear that criminals are actually victims.
To set the record straight, victims of crimes are the true victims, the perpetrators—and those who aid, abet and participate in crime with them—are criminals. I hope all the progressive prosecutors--and Democratic Presidential candidates--will give serious thought to what it means to eliminate bail, reduce sentences and allow criminals to run loose in our communities.
Who is responsible for post-release crimes committed by those released early? An apology to their future victims will be of small consolation for those who are harmed; and how about compensation and restitution for the actual victims?
Early release or release without bail of thousands of criminals is a recipe for increased crime, and increased numbers of victims. (Check federal statistics of recidivism rates—very sobering.)
Why doesn't the NYT run a long series of articles about how victims' lives have been harmed--or shattered--or taken--by criminals? Pretty easy to develop sympathy for victims, I should think.
Virtually no criminals are forced to commit their crimes; there is such a thing as free will. It's simple:
Just don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
5