Discovery Reform
Discovery Reform: A Synopsis
Effective January 2020,
Discovery Reform set out to accelerate the trial process.
It shortened timeframes for sharing evidence (discovery material) between prosecutors and defense attorneys before trial. The law establishes a presumption of sharing and sets specific timeframes. It creates “automatic discovery,” which mandates District Attorneys turn over large quantities of unneeded, often unavailable, or yet-to-be-processed evidence.
Additional Discovery Reforms were mandated in May 2020 and April 2022 (see below timeline).
Discovery Reform's intentions went beyond speedier trials.
Focusing on fairness and transparency, it was designed to produce “more just” case outcomes, improve defendant case preparation, shorten time spent in pre-trial detention, reduce prison and jail populations, and shorten case-processing times.
The result of Discovery Reform is that fewer cases are prosecuted.
More cases are dismissed, prosecutors quit, and crime victims are discarded.
Discovery Reform: An Editorial
In addition to bail reform, New York lawmakers decided in 2020 to pass Discovery Reform with the goal of accelerating trials.
At one time, prosecutors drove cases, judges guided due process, and defense attorneys ensured defendants’ best interests.
The balance that once existed is now gone. Legislated rules meant to accelerate the trials now impede prosecutions with impossible deadlines and burdens on District Attorneys that result in dismissals of thousands of cases.
From violations to violent felonies, Discovery Reform leaves thousands of crime victims without justice. It gives legal advantage to criminals over victims.
“Automatic” discovery forces prosecutors to turn over large quantities of information, often unnecessary, under unworkable timelines. Much of it is irrelevant and goes unexamined by defense attorneys who didn’t want it to begin with. Prosecutors do unnecessary work, while defense attorneys do nothing but let the clock run out so their clients can skip out the door.
Prosecutors bear all responsibility for discovery, while defense attorneys have none.
Accelerating the process results in fewer cases being prosecuted, with many dismissed. New prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys don’t get needed trial experience. Frustrated Assistant District Attorneys are leaving the criminal justice system resulting in a prosecutor shortage.
Solutions lie in practicality, NOT emotionally charged, politically motivated demands for social justice. Lawmakers must restore balance in New York’s court system with clearly revised legislation that doesn’t destroy it:
- Consult with the professionals the Discovery Reform failure affects most—court officers—District Attorneys, judges, and defense attorneys.
- Return to a demand system where defense attorneys file for evidence declared by prosecutors; reintroduce reasonableness into the fluid nature of discovery.
- Stop the clock on speedy trial requirements and increase timelines to account for evidence impossible to produce under unrealistic deadlines—things like DNA analysis, lab reports, autopsies, etc.
- Require defense attorneys to advocate for clients, review evidence, provide reciprocal discovery, file certificates of compliance, and prove damage to a case before sanctions are levied by judges.
- Provide judges with guidelines for permissible sanctions that don’t just result in case dismissals.
Just because discovery is cloaked by a judicial process that relies almost solely upon attorneys doesn’t mean citizens should pay for bad legislation with injustice or lack of representation. No matter which side of the courtroom they sit on.
WHY WE CARE
“Discovery Reform was said to be needed to even the playing field between the prosecution and defense. This is a worthy goal. However, in reality, it has placed an undue burden on prosecutors to provide voluminous evidence to defense counsel in unreasonable time frames. Rather than allowing for a robust legal defense, the reforms have resulted in the mandatory suppression of evidence at trial. As with the bail reform laws, Discovery Reform has left little room for judicial discretion in fashioning a remedy for the inadvertent failure to comply with its rules. Providing more room for judicial discretion in these matters would assure the defendant's right to a fair trial is protected. Judges, of course, could suppress evidence where there is proof of gross violations of the rules, but they also should be free to provide less draconian remedies to assure a fair trial."
Hon. Thomas VanStrydonck
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUSTICE (RET.) & CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (RET.)
Discovery Reform: A Timeline
Discovery Reform laws (NYS CPL Article 245) established new, accelerated timeframes for the sharing of evidence between the prosecution and defense during the pretrial period. The law requires automatic discovery of materials, establishes a presumption of sharing, and sets specific timeframes for the sharing of evidence between the prosecution and defense during the pretrial period.
January 2020
Discovery Reform takes effect; requires prosecutors disclose all evidence to the defense within 15 days of an accused's arraignment.
May 2020
The discovery disclosure timelines are amended from the original 15 days to 20 to consider a defendant’s custody status post-arraignment for those in custody and 35 for those not in jail.
April 2022
Amendments in the NYS budget limit the obligation to turn over discovery for traffic infractions and specify when prosecutors file a supplemental certificate of discovery compliance, they must detail the basis for delayed disclosure. If a court determines the prosecution exercised proper due diligence, it can rule that the initial certificate remains valid, even if incomplete. This increased the clerical burden on ADAs.
Discovery Reform: Additional Information
Well before the 2018 legislative push for criminal justice reforms, the New York State court system endeavored to accelerate cases at every level and make the process fairer. While many of the efforts were administrative policy changes, lawmakers in Albany passed reforms that affected both prosecutors and defense attorneys. Those reforms focused on discovery.
New York legislators repealed the state’s old discovery “blindfold” law in 2019
- and replaced it with Criminal Procedure Law Article 245, which requires District Attorneys to provide all evidence to their defense counterparts earlier in case proceedings.
Amendments to the 2019 reform bill relaxed some timeframes for prosecutors when defendants weren’t incarcerated. Lawmakers also exempted certain types of victims and witnesses from having identifying information given to defendants. Further amendments attached to the 2022 state budget largely eliminated the discovery burden on prosecutors in many vehicle and traffic offenses as well as municipal code violations not subject to jail sentences.
Discovery Reform and subsequent amendments set down rules affecting numerous areas:
- What constitutes discoverable materials
- Timeframes and timelines for discovery, grand jury proceedings, plea offers, and certain court hearings
- Coordination of information between law enforcement and prosecutors
- “Reciprocal discovery” for defense attorneys to provide information to prosecutors
- Filing of discovery compliance certificates and documentation for any delays
- Data collection and reporting by the Office of Court Administration (OCA) and the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) relating to the implementation of Discovery Reform
- Remedies and sanctions for non-compliance
- Continued obligations for disclosure, including preservation of evidence and, in some cases, defense access to crime scenes or other relevant locations
WHY WE CARE
"Throughout my 33 years on the bench, my ultimate goal was to achieve justice for all parties who appeared before me. Fairness and impartial consideration were of utmost for the victims and the accused in all criminal cases. Discovery Reform, a notable and promising idea in its inception, has unfortunately evolved into sometimes impossible situations for the prosecution and the defense. It also has often put judges in very difficult positions where cases must be dismissed due to poor filing practices, rather than on the merits of the cases. The Discovery Reform mandates, as now implemented, may often remove the essential fairness so necessary in our Criminal Justice System.”
Hon. Joseph D. Valentino
NEW YORK STATE APPELLATE DIVISION JUSTICE (RET.)
