Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/nyc, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a >responsibility to be skeptical, check sources and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find >evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

The gift that keeps on giving!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ironic that the cops call it a tragedy when every other DWI in the news seems to be a police officer

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

The article references only DWI felonies.

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

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

Not really - when a cop does, it's newsworthy. But the vast majority who do it are not cops.

The timelines for discovery needs adjustment and it should be for relevant items to case. Let the judge decide if relevant and if defense feels they are missing something crucial to defense...let them argue it to the jury & judge during trial. Tossing entire case for non relevant items is absurd. It should be a measured response. Defense simply abusing discovery to prevent cases from reaching trial. Where's the justice in that for victims?

So now we’re just making stuff up?

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

Breaking: Cops want to roll back protections for defendants. Oh brother.

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

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

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

Breaking news, defense attorney and plaintiffs don't want to go to trial and claim missing random x document as reason they get off for their alleged crimes. They not asking for the case to be dismiss bc they claim they are innocent but time to bring them to trial lapse under 30.30 bc x doc missing and the people not certified to go to trial.

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

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

Yeah, this may be news to you, but that's the job of a defense attorney and how operating within our Constitution has worked since forever. You advocate for your clients by not only attesting to their innocence but also guaranteeing their rights are being protected in the legal process.

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

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

It's not just DWI drivers.

Crooked cops are also getting away with their cases dismissed because of the discovery requirements.

https://nypost.com/2023/01/31/manhattan-da-abruptly-drops-case-against-crooked-cop-joseph-franco/

Thanks to the amazingly coherent radical left ideology.

DWI’s been getting dismissed for over a decade.

Apropos when responding to a Post article

I feel like NY legislators need to be required to discuss all of the unintended consequences of bills they’re debating.

It’s like they pass any feel-good sounding shit and just hope for the best.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Its cause politicians and their families DWI all the time and this just strengthen their impunity.

[deleted]

>Let the judge decide if relevant

That's not how the justice system works. The judge isn't the one deciding what is relevant for the defense of a defendant before a trial has begun.

If a system relies only on the defense being left in the dark and not receiving all evidence against them in order for it to "run smoothly"- the system is broken.

That's just not true, and if you practice criminal law in NYC and have read Article 245, you know it.

Judicial dismissal is an extraordinary remedy that under 245.80 must come after consideration of other remedies like precluding testimony or giving an adverse inference charge. And courts have generally rejected defendants' motions for dismissal under 245.80 when there's no showing of prosecutorial bad-faith or prejudice. In fact, Article 245 explicitly requires prosecutors to make only a "diligent, good faith effort" to comply.

The data the Post cites doesn't differentiate between dismissal types. What's likely happening is that cases which would usually plead out (the vast vast majority) prior to any discovery are now being voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution, not dismissed by the judge. Why? Because before discovery reform, you didn't get access to any exculpatory evidence until after plea offers expired. Now, prosecutors have to actually prove their cases instead of just threatening defendants with big prison sentences to force a plea.

DWIs are bad, but due process is good. The solution to societal problems is not to strip people of their rights.

yes bc there's a ton of ambiguity regarding dwi when it's the only driver and already blew past limit

A DWI, like any offense, still requires Due Process.