Woman Followed Into Manhattan Building, Dragged Out of Elevator in Late-Night Rape: Cops
nbcnewyork.comSubmitted by NetQuarterLatte t3_11j3msr in nyc
NetQuarterLatte OP t1_jb1i9df wrote
Reply to comment by squall571 in Woman Followed Into Manhattan Building, Dragged Out of Elevator in Late-Night Rape: Cops by NetQuarterLatte
That will depend on the evidence they have on this case, but felony conviction rates dropped quite a bit in NYC.
In 2017, 14.3% of the felony arrests resulted into a felony conviction. In 2019, that was 12.0%.
In 2021, that dropped to only 6.1%.
So even if he gets arrested for a felony here, the odds are stacked in his favor (15 to 1).
The reforms (such as the discovery reform) enacted in 2020 can't be ignored.
jvspino t1_jb1kfgl wrote
According to the article you linked, those include what's below. They don't sound unreasonable and if the prosecutors can't get ahold of most of these things, it's an issue with police record keeping, which is honestly concerning. I don't know enough about the witness requirements to have a strong opinion on them, but I think in general the defense should have access to this info since it's relevant to the case. It also reads like a list of rules created in reaction to misconduct - there must have been some questionable expert witnesses for 6 to have been written.
>1. All police paperwork >2. All body-worn cameras, even for officers not involved directly in the arrest >3. All police-disciplinary records for every officer on scene >4. Witness names and contact information, meaning if prosecutors worry a witness is put at risk or can be intimidated, they must petition a judge to redact that information. >5. Criminal records of “potential witnesses” >6. Expert-witness résumés and writings >7. Disciplinary records of any possible police witnesses and any other material “related to the case.”
Brolic_Broccoli t1_jb26w64 wrote
As an attorney that practices in this field, it sounds reasonable at first right? The reality is that it's impossible to do this on every single case when you have 130+ cases and the turn around is 90 days on misdeamanors. If you're past 90 days the case is dismissed by law regardless of the merits. Meaning even if you have a cooperative victim, the defendant is caught on video, and he admits to doing it, the law states that the case must be dismissed.
Generally what's missing when a case is dismissed? Let's talk about a domestic violence assault case. It's not the paperwork work that you need like an arrest report surveillance notes, or even anything that's remotely helpful to the defense etc case. You have all of the responding and arresting officers information, reports and body camera already.
It's generally paperwork like 20th cop that arrived at the scene that didn't see anything and didn't arrest anyone yet you need his automatically generated memo book with the only entry being the time he began his shift.
If you don't have that, the case is dismissed, the order of protection is dismissed and the abuser is free to contact and abuse their victim again and the cycle of domestic violence continues.
jvspino t1_jb2g3br wrote
I appreciate your perspective on the matter. It seems like there's opportunities to specify how and when these should be taken into account because I agree situations like the domestic violence one you discussed shouldn't be dropped. However, I'd hesitate to throw out the baby with the bathwater here - accountability and transparency are important in the justice system. Maybe I'm naively optimistic, but I'd really hope we can improve the system so that it's reasonably efficient but still gives people a fair shot at defending themselves. I don't think the solution should be fully rolling back these changes, as some other people seem to be suggesting.
Brolic_Broccoli t1_jb2h0ee wrote
Hey,
Thanks for taking the time to read my wall of text comment.
I agree with each part of the legislative intent - and the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water here. The Reforms were badly needed in 2019. Defendants are absolutely entitled to each and every relevant piece of information that is helpful to their case. It's the enforcement mechanisms tied into the matter - such as having the entire case dismissed - because the statutory speedy trial deadline passes amongst other issues.
jvspino t1_jb2hus4 wrote
And I appreciate your thoughtful replies. As a non-lawyer, I assume there's a lot of bureaucracy (and some corruption) that slows things down in system and leads to less-than-ideal solutions. Though I hope that we can still make progress in the right direction, even if slowly.
Brolic_Broccoli t1_jb2jrhc wrote
For the most part, we're all regular new yorkers who live in the neighborhood and want community safety, willing to put in at least 12 hours a day despite receiving no overtime to process all the documents and videos we have.
My hope is that enough individuals let their legislative representatives know that we need change and tweaks in the right direction, because this affects us and our friends and family.
SleepyHobo t1_jb2bi0j wrote
The items required don't sound unreasonable, but the focal point of the article was the time frame that they're required to turn over all of that evidence in. Seems like there's more of a limited resource of staffing and man hours, not a lack of access to the evidence. And it seems like these requirements were instituted either out of ignorance to the reality of its feasibility or malice to cripple the system.
I'd bet a lot of money the same people that bought this bill to fruition are not even remotely interested in increasing staffing to meet its obligations.
jvspino t1_jb2hccz wrote
I mean, law enforcement gets more funding than other critical areas, like education and infrastructure. I'm not sure this is intentional crippling like you're suggesting it is, though I'd hope lawmakers and judges clarify the law so that it's not a a get out of jail card. However, as I replied to someone else, I don't think the answer is necessarily to go back to the old system, which had it's own slew of issues. We should strive to do better, even when the answers aren't clear cut.
NetQuarterLatte OP t1_jb1l5p8 wrote
I think the devils are in the details.
But the overall change in the conviction rates are undeniable.
My layman understanding is that the messier the case is, more pieces of potential exculpatory evidence is created, and it’s more chances for the prosecution to violate the discovery requirements and benefit the defense (even the evidence in question turns out to be innocuous).
https://www.city-journal.org/new-york-discovery-reform-is-crushing-prosecutors gives an example of an hypothetical bar brawl.
And then we also had this bad cop case that was dropped because of the discovery requirements: https://nypost.com/2023/01/31/manhattan-da-abruptly-drops-case-against-crooked-cop-joseph-franco/
jvspino t1_jb1qi2b wrote
I don't disagree with you entirely, but, as always, correlation is not causation. The pandemic resulted in high police mortality and lots of cities have been having trouble staffing departments, which probably contribute. I'm sure these reforms are having a negative impact on conviction rates, but we also can't assume that's necessarily a bad thing. Yes, there are high profile cases where someone clearly guilty gets off, but I'm sure there's less attention when someone innocent gets off too. As I mentioned above, several read like they were created to combat bad police work. I'm sure they create a higher bar for cases, but more work isn't an excuse to accept poor or dishonest policing and prosecution. I live in the city and am concerned about being a victim of crime, but being a victim of a corrupt justice system isn't something we should take lightly. Just my thoughts though.
LikesBallsDeep t1_jb1w1ax wrote
Only reason covid killed a lot of cops is they were always the worst maskers around.
theuncleiroh t1_jb2dj6a wrote
City Journal is a conservative ideological think-tank. Not exactly offering good evidence for your case here. All 7 of those are completely rational and fair. It's necessary to give the defense some defense (lol), since the system is already materially and structurally in favor of prosecution; the point is to reach a place of balance and equality, not to preserve the status quo and call it fair.
LikesBallsDeep t1_jb1vvsq wrote
Wait wtf is this for real? Barely 1 in 20 people arrested on a felony charge are convicted? What the fuck is this? Either the police are making a shit ton of unjustified arrests or our entire judiciary needs to be fired and start from scratch.
Brolic_Broccoli t1_jb280dm wrote
Hey LikesBallsDeep,
I practice in the field. The main cause of dismissals is CPL Article 245, the sheer volume of irrelevant paperwork is impossible to receive before the statutory deadline on each and every case. "Discovery" occurs after the defendant is arrested, charged and formally arraigned before a Judge. 245 stipulates that everything that is "discoverable" must be provided within 90 days for misdeamanors and 6 months for felonies, with zero extensions allowed by law. Meaning most cases are usually dismissed without getting to the merits aka without ever going to trial.
Because discovery stops the prosecutors from getting to the trial phase, victims never get to testify, and perpetrators have all charges against that dismissed and sealed, meaning that it's like they never did the crime to begin with.
theuncleiroh t1_jb2cvrn wrote
Glad to have your input, as someone working in the field. I'll offer some other relevant input, as someone who's been fucked over by the laws amended therein.
As a college student arrested for a protest charge, I didn't hear a thing for months. I finally show up for my first hearing, and my charges are elevated from misdemeanor to felony. No evidence presented, judge accepts. Now wait a few more months. I'm now at another university hours away. I start having to take monthly trips to go to hearing after hearing. Discovery went on for nearly 1.5 years, meaning I kept having to show up, sick or in health, impacted by school or not, etc, and make my dates. Trial pushed back the entire time, until it's finally time for it, and they drop all charges during pre-trial.
I'm sure having limited time for discovery limits prosecutors. I also know that prosecutors have something near a 10-1 material advantages over public defenders (there's a logic to this: PD defend only poor, prosecutors go after public and privately represented clients; this doesn't eliminate the impact on poor clients with even more overworked and under-resourced representation), not to mention structural advantages and inherently (& ideologically) better relations with police and judges. Sometimes a disadvantage on one side, as important and often benevolent that side may be, serves to right the balance-- so that innocent people don't have their lives ruined by endless court dates and unequal quality of representation.
Brolic_Broccoli t1_jb2gbaq wrote
Hey,
I completely understand where you are coming from and thank you for listening.
Your experience is exactly why reform was desperately needed in 2019, with the tragedy of Kalief Browder's case demonstrating that the "blind fold" law that NY previously had in terms of discovery needed to be completely overhauled.
I agree with each and every principal of the legislative intent behind enacting the changes. My critique from working in the field is that their built in enforcement mechanisms, aka having discovery tied into the speedy trial statutes, essentially doesn't work for the reasons I mentioned, putting victims in further harms way.
I might make a whole separate post for bail and discovery for non-practioners if there's interest.
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jb2dg7n wrote
So procecutors don't have a system to get the defentants attorney the docs within 6 months. My industry Iwork in has an absurd amount of government regulation that keeps changing and date after date to comply with and the industry changes with the changes. Speculilized Software is used and other techniques. Why can't supper smart attorneys figure it out?
Brolic_Broccoli t1_jb2fhfd wrote
It's not just a "system", there is already an electronic discovery system in place that gets the documents and various other discovery, surveillance, lab reports, video metadata, intoxilyzer/PBT calibrations etc etc. 99/100 a prosecutor receives all of the paperwork that they need to actually be able to prosecute the case, 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 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. 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.
frenchiefanatique t1_jb29x55 wrote
Paperwork? Because of the time it takes to complete the paperwork? That is absurd. This will lead to more vigilante and extra-judicial violence.
Brolic_Broccoli t1_jb2bhtd wrote
Hey Frenchie,
Defendants are entitled to a fair trial and to any and all evidence that exculpatory. But the reforms lump in every single irrelevant piece of paper that must be provided within the statutory period. I agree with you. It's extremely frustrating having to console a victims and tell them that there is nothing that I can do because it's the law. And I am worried about their safety because their abusers and assailants are still out there.
A justice system where you don't reach the merits of a case isn't functional. It will lead to vigilante violence.
NetQuarterLatte OP t1_jb23ry3 wrote
While I understand the anti-police sentiment, convictions rate is not really a measure of the quality of police arrests.
A better measure of the quality of the arrests is whether prosecutors are charging the case (assuming the prosecution doesn’t change, obviously).
Arrests that are not justified will have their prosecution declined, and that statistic is also available in the linked sheet.
columbo928s4 t1_jb2amnp wrote
The NYPD? Arrest someone who hadn't committed any crime? They would never do that!
LikesBallsDeep t1_jb2blkm wrote
Yeah.. that it happens isn't surprising. That it's 20x more than convicted is shocking.
columbo928s4 t1_jb2bwof wrote
I think a much more valuable statistic would be comparing cases brought by prosecutors to number of convictions
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments