Judicial accountability is hobbled by lack of transparency
As the Times Union reported in November, a recent report by Scrutinize and Reinvent Albany found that New York judges effectively decide whether or not to publish their decisions in criminal cases. The result? Only 6% of lower court criminal decisions are public.
This situation is not only regrettable but also violates the law. And as a consequence, New Yorkers are left in the dark as to how their judges mete justice, uphold constitutional rights and combat racial disparities in the legal system.
The lack of transparency in the justice system extends beyond judicial decisions. And that lack of public access to judicial decisions, data and memos, hinders New Yorkers’ ability to monitor and hold their judges accountable.
Recent FOIL requests filed by judicial watchdog Scrutinize, in conjunction with the NYCLU and Harvard Law’s Cyberlaw Clinic, seek to access historical court data that would illuminate, and suggest actionable solutions, to the persistent racial disparities in New York’s criminal legal system. Yet the court system has not voluntarily made this crucial data available to New Yorkers concerned about the state’s disproportionate incarceration of people of color.
Meanwhile, the administrative body overseeing New York’s courts has been fighting to conceal memos with legal guidance for judges. This includes a 2021 memo intended to limit a landmark ruling protecting defendants: It instructed judges to restrict the scope of defendants’ right to a prompt review of orders of protection, which could unjustly separate them from their homes or families.
This resistance does not inspire confidence. Might judges have received other substantive memos directing narrow interpretations of other rulings, or cabining the Legislature’s bail and discovery reform laws?
Given that New York judges do not hold positions for life, public access to their decisions and data is critical for evaluating those seeking reappointment, reelection or promotion.
But New Yorkers have good reasons for optimism: Under Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, the Court of Appeals has shown a greater concern for New Yorkers’ rights and the Legislature’s will.
That’s shown in a recent unanimous opinion in People v. Bay, in which New York’s Court of Appeals upheld key parts of the state’s open-book discovery reform law. The decision reaffirms the protections, embedded in law by the Legislature, that require prosecutors to share all evidence with the defense, ensuring transparency. It validates the state’s recent criminal legal reform efforts, and it should be celebrated as a new direction for the state judiciary.
Such decisive actions align with the court system leadership’s affirmation that it is “firmly committed to maintaining a transparent judiciary for all New Yorkers.” They need to continue to follow through. Historically relegated to an afterthought, state courts and state judges now find themselves at the center of persistent advocacy and reform efforts, and they have an opportunity to support and implement changes to increase transparency of their operations. Such changes promise to also strengthen the courts’ legitimacy and improve the administration of justice.