The Oneida Daily Dispatch (Oneida, NY)
Oneida police chief discusses discovery laws
About a month or so ago, I wrote about the bail reform law which was passed last year as part of the budget bill. Another provision of criminal justice reform that was passed at that same time was an entire rewrite of the discovery laws.
Discovery is the process by which a defendant is apprised by the prosecution of the evidence against him or her. Discovery is an important tool for a defendant who wants to take his/her case to trial. Prior discovery rules may have favored the people (prosecution) in some respects, but this was in no small part because, under our system, the people bear the burden of proving guilt.
With the new discovery laws, defendants now must be automatically provided every bit of evidence that the people have against them within 15 days of arraignment, with almost no exception. This is an enormous burden on both the police and the prosecution and applies even if a defendant has no intention of taking their case to trial. A person cannot plead guilty to an offense until the prosecution verifies that all discovery obligations have been met.
Imagine a scenario where a person is charged with a crime where there are multiple witnesses, video and/or photographic evidence and perhaps lab tests. Assume that person just wants to admit to what they did and go to court and plead guilty. Under this set of circumstances, the police and the prosecution would still be required to provide all video recordings, photographs, witness statements, and any other evidence to that defendant before they would be allowed to plead guilty.
Certainly, if somebody wants to contest their charges, they should be allowed access to such evidence. In instances where a person doesn’t wish to contest their charges, however, the burden of automatic discovery is time- consuming and onerous and constitutes an absolute waste of time and resources. Some jurisdictions have expressed an inability to meet the statutory requirements of this law and have indicated an intention not to prosecute lowerlevel offenses.
Beyond all of this, the law now requires that a defendant be provided the names and addresses of all victims and witnesses within that same time period. This can have a chilling effect on a victim or a witness and may even affect their willingness to cooperate with an investigation. Additionally, the law also allows a defendant to petition a judge to be able to visit a crime scene, even if that crime scene is the victim’s home.
While the rights of people who have been accused of a crime shouldn’t be ignored, neither should they trump the rights of innocent citizens who find themselves victims of crime. A solution that is fair to both sides should be the goal and that goal could be achievable if all stakeholders were brought to the table before such sweeping changes were made.