Comments
HEIMDVLLR t1_j6o91i4 wrote
You should read other sources.
From what I read elsewhere, it involves the prosecutors not sharing evidence with the defense team.
> Prosecutors failed to share with Franco's defense team five cellphone data reports connected to people arrested for drug sales based on Franco's alleged lies.
> "New Yorkers must know that law enforcement, including prosecutors, are acting with the utmost integrity. We hold ourselves accountable to that standard," Manhattan DA spokesman Doug Cohen said. "After disclosing evidence that violated our discovery requirements, the People today consented to the Defense motion to dismiss the case against Joseph Franco. The presiding Judge dismissed and sealed the case."
> Cohen went on to say the assistant DA handling the prosecution was removed from her post as deputy unit chief and that the General Counsel's Office will conduct an investigation.
> "The Post-Conviction Justice Unit will continue its ongoing review of cases affected by former Detective Franco's misconduct, which has thus far resulted in the vacatur of more than 100 Manhattan convictions," Cohen said. — CBS News
thefuturebaby t1_j6ovwdw wrote
Thank you for posting that.
[deleted] t1_j6pg20r wrote
[deleted]
ScruffyB t1_j6o9o4m wrote
Nothing I've read specifies whether the withheld material was actual Brady (i.e., exculpatory) or just some maybe-related paperwork that has to be disclosed because of NY's expansive discovery reform of Jan 1, 2020. If the material was Brady, that's a big ethical screw-up by the ADA. If it's not, then this dismissal is another example of discovery reform creating system paralysis instead of justice.
ADADummy t1_j6okm5y wrote
The fact the office consented to defendant's motion to dismiss, rather than oppose and try appealing the dismissal, leads me to believe that it's closer to a Brady/Rosario issue rather than the new discovery reforms, or if it was the reforms a very egregious violation to the point of perceived willfulness.
ScruffyB t1_j6opvok wrote
I'd like to think so, but I also worry that line ADAs will get hung out to dry on these big, sprawling cases, where there is little institutional capacity to make sure they have the tools and processes to chase down every loose end. This sort of case must have been a nightmare to assemble under the new discovery laws. This detective was involved in dozens of potentially dirty cases, many of which predated the 2020 reform, so the line ADA has to track down paperwork from physical files, scattered thumb drives, and poorly organized electronic records in several different databases and interfaces. Has the DA's Office built the capacity to conduct that process efficiently, or does it just expect its line prosecutors to work harder because it's the right thing to do? If this ADA really dropped the ball, then fine, maybe it's on them. But I worry that the office will dress up its institutional deficiencies as individual failures, to everyone's detriment.
ADADummy t1_j6orn32 wrote
I agree generally, but this wasn't a line ADA. It was the deputy chief of the police accountability unit, who was then stripped of her title. If any case had the resources behind it, it was this one.
ScruffyB t1_j6ottlu wrote
Fair point. Nevertheless, "resources" to me doesn't just mean money, it means systems and institutional memory. If the e-discovery systems are crappy (having been built in-house in the last three years?), then more money and paralegals on a given case won't fix the problem of scattered, disorganized docs. It'll still just be public employees putting in extra hours to try and chase down every scrap of paper.
Side note, too: Seniority and experience can be a handicap for an ADA or deputy chief in these circumstances, because they learned the ropes under a very different discovery regime, so they will have a hard time adapting compared to more junior ADAs who will learn quickly as they plow through a zillion lower-stakes cases.
ADADummy t1_j6php6e wrote
So the vast majority, if not essentially all, of these new discovery dismissals are because of the intersection of discovery and statutory speedy trial pretrial, which mandates dismissal because you were never ready. This was an in trial motion, meaning you have alternative remedies such as adverse inference, mistrial, etc.
I am pretty sure the consented nature here, plus the dinging of the titled prosecutor, means something more than the normal CPL 245 bs happened here.
drpvn t1_j6od75z wrote
Yep and yep.
KaiDaiz t1_j6oo6am wrote
Missing 5 call logs out of zillion other docs for the 100+ convictions overturned which may have been not important at all
Discovery and speedy trial reform giving dividends.
oreosfly t1_j6p5rj8 wrote
> The prosecution of Mr. Franco was cut short when Ms. Minogue’s team failed on three occasions to hand over evidence to the former detective’s lawyer, a major ethical violation. The judge, Robert R. Mandelbaum, dismissed the case with prejudice: The office will not be able to prosecute Mr. Franco for the same crimes again.
Here’s the real kicker:
> It is unlikely that other prosecutors who have moved to vacate cases related to Mr. Franco’s work will be in a position to bring charges. The statute of limitations for the felony charges that the ex-detective faced is five years. Mr. Franco stopped working in Brooklyn in 2011, and in the Bronx in 2015.
Somebody please primary Alvin Bragg in 2025. This man and his subordinates wouldn’t be able to hold a dog accountable for its crimes even if they wanted to
AutoModerator t1_j6o7tie wrote
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.
[deleted] t1_j6okvu0 wrote
[removed]
Speedyx OP t1_j6o83yq wrote
Glad to see Alvin Bragg continues to not be able to hold any criminals accountable, even corrupt cops.
They should be transparent and explain why this case was dropped.