Criminal Justice Reform

New York (Finally) Levels the Discovery Playing Field

May 12, 2019 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

Discovery in New York State criminal cases has long been completely unfair to defendants. The New York discovery rules have not been substantially revised since 1979. More than a dozen reform bills that have been introduced over the last 40 years have been successfully blocked by the State’s district attorneys’ association which has argued, among other things, that providing information concerning witnesses places them in danger.

What little discovery was available in New York included something called a “People’s Voluntary Disclosure Statement”. This basically useless document, which was just a couple of pages in length, was composed of a set of questions and responses drafted by the district attorney’s office with the goal of providing as little case-related information as possible. Because of the lack of meaningful discovery, motion practice was similarly laughable. Defense attorneys would typically file an omnibus motion at the beginning of the case seeking every conceivable form of pretrial relief without really knowing what was needed for their case. Given the absence of information that could be obtained through meaningful discovery procedures, such a motion could not be tailored to the specific needs of a particular case and did little, if anything, to create a record for appeal.

Most criminal cases do not proceed to trial. In fact, between 95 and 100 percent of all criminal cases nationally resolve by way of plea deal. Under the prior New York rules, district attorneys were able to withhold information from defense counsel until just prior to trial. This created two problems. First, defense attorneys were forced to negotiate and evaluate plea offers with virtually no information. Defendants were, therefore, placed in the unenviable position of making major decisions concerning their cases with little, if any, information regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the People’s case. Additionally, if the defendant decided to proceed to trial, counsel would be forced to work through the majority of their trial prep time without important information that could form the basis for investigation of the underlying facts, effective cross-examination of witnesses, and viable defenses.

State v. Hyppolite – State’s Discovery Obligations for Pretrial Detention Hearings

January 28, 2019 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

Criminal justice reform in New Jersey is now two years old. As we gain more experience with the underlying rules and procedures, it is worth reviewing whether they are achieving their stated goals and the effect they are having on our criminal justice system. State v. Hyppolite, recently decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court, discusses the State’s discovery obligations prior to a detention hearing, and what happens when the prosecutor fails to meet it.

Hyppolite stemmed from a shooting and homicide in Jersey City. The police identified Michael Gregg as a witness and interviewed him on two separate occasions. Gregg gave his first statement shortly after the shooting, and said that he heard three to four shots but did not see the shooter. Some months later, he gave a second statement where he, among other things, identified the defendant as the shooter. The defendant was arrested and charged with murder and weapons offenses, and the probable cause affidavit submitted in support of the complaint stated that he was positively identified as the shooter by an eyewitness. The State moved for pretrial detention, and produced by way of discovery materials regarding Gregg’s second statement, but failed to provide any information concerning the first statement. The Court ordered the defendant to be detained.

The State subsequently produced additional discovery after the defendant was indicted, including materials concerning Gregg’s first statement, recordings of interviews of other alleged witnesses which contradicted Gregg’s version of events, and an application for a communications data warrant for Gregg’s phone. This was the first time defense counsel received this material. Counsel moved to re-open the detention hearing. The trial court denied the application, and the Appellate Division denied leave to appeal The Supreme Court, however, granted leave to appeal.

Is Bail Reform Reducing Jail Populations to the Greatest Extent Possible?

November 12, 2018 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

Bail Reform went into effect in New Jersey almost two years ago. Its stated goals included, among other things, a reduction in jail populations. At the heart of this issue was the implementation of a screening tool known as a Public Safety Assessment, or “PSA”, which is prepared by Pre-Trial Services. The PSA is basically a scoresheet that evaluates each defendant to determine what, if any, terms of pre-trial release should be imposed by the Court, or if the defendant should be remanded to a county jail. The PSA is used on a State-wide basis. In other words, it is used in all counties for all defendants in the Superior Court.

I have always believed that the PSA is problematic because of its “one-size-fits-all” approach to the State’s defendant population. I also believe that this concern is supported by the fact that the algorithm underlying the PSA does not account for all individual variations that may exist between and among all defendants. Given that we have now had some experience with bail reform and the PSA, this may be a good time to take a hard look at the new pre-trial release procedures to see how well they work within the larger context of our State’s criminal justice system.

We can all agree that every jurisdiction wants to reduce its jail population. Toward that end, New Jersey has not been the only state to adopt some sort of bail reform. States all over the country are doing the same thing for the same reasons. This is not surprising given the national experience over the last several decades. We know that inmate populations have been rising nationally for decades. In 1970, daily local jail populations were at about 157,000 inmates. By 2015, that number exceeded 700,000. Close to 11,000,000 people are admitted into jails annually in this country. Given these staggering numbers, coupled with the costs associated with building and maintaining jails as well as the societal costs stemming from incarceration, we need to constantly ask if enough is being done to reduce our jail populations to the lowest possible levels. Continue reading ›

State v. SN – New Jersey Supreme Court Announces the Proper Standard of Appellate Review for Pretrial Detention Decisions

February 25, 2018 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

We recently passed the first anniversary of criminal justice reform in New Jersey. As discussed regularly on this blog, these far-reaching changes to criminal practice and procedure in the State affect the handling of all criminal cases in the Superior Court. The primary areas that these changes impact upon are bail reform and the speed with which criminal cases progress through the system.

As discussed in previous posts, the new procedures assume those charged with criminal offenses will not be incarcerated pending trial or other case disposition. Prosecutors can, however, seek to detain a defendant while their case is pending before the court. This is accomplished by means of a detention motion filed by the State, which is followed by a detention hearing. After considering, among other things the arguments of counsel and the Public Safety Assessment (the “PSA” – a sort of score sheet that rates the defendant for risk of failure to appear in court in the future and likelihood of committing new offenses), the court decides whether to release the defendant with or without conditions, require the posting of a bail, or detain the defendant without bail. The defendant can appeal an adverse detention decision.

SN was charged with sex offenses. The PSA gave him the lowest possible scores for risk of committing additional offenses and risk of failure to appear, but still recommended detention regardless of the low scores. The State sought pretrial detention, arguing that there was a serious risk that defendant would fail to appear in court, that he was a danger to the community, that he would intimidate the victim, her mother and other witnesses to obstruct justice, and that he was a flight risk because he had relatives living in another country. Continue reading ›