Rpld §240.10 sub 1, §§240.45 & §240.80, amd CP L, generally
Amends numerous provisions of law regarding discovery procedure and requirements in criminal cases including provisions for discovery by defendant of arrest and complaint reports and discovery by the prosecutor; eliminates demand discovery; requires prosecutor to make available to defense within 15 days of arraignment materials and information and to make a good faith effort to ascertain existence of discoverable material; makes provisions on protective orders.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A3563
SPONSOR: Lentol TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in
relation to discovery procedure and requirements and to repeal subdivi-
sion 1 of section 240.10, section 240.45 and section 240.80 of such law
relating thereto
PURPOSE:
To amend the discovery procedure in criminal cases by replacing demand
discovery with mandatory discovery which will eliminate the unfairness
and inefficiency of the current system, and provide for broader discov-
ery in criminal cases..
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
This bill amends the Criminal Procedure Law to provide for the following
changes:
1) § 240.15 requires the prosecutor to provide the defendant with a copy
of the arrest and complaint report.
2) § 240.20 eliminates demand discovery, and requires the prosecutor to
make available to the defense, with 15 days of arraignment, an expanded
list of materials and information including police reports and grand
jury testimony. This section also requires a good faith effort by the
prosecutor to ascertain the existence of discoverable property (or
information) and make it available to the defense.
3) .§ 240.30 provides that the defense make available to the prosecution
discoverable property and/or materials.
4) § 240.50 provides that either party can apply for a protective order
to deny, limit or regulate the discovery of the names and/or addresses
of witnesses for good cause which includes substantial risk of physical
harm, intimidation, unjustified annoyance or embarrassment of the
witness or an adverse effect upon the legitimate needs of law enforce-
ment including the protection of the confidentiality of the informant.
5) § 240.90 requires that a motion by a defendant for discovery must
state that each item of property sought has not. previously been
disclosed to the defendant.
6) § 710.30 subdivision 2 is amended so that statement or identification
notice must be served within thirty days of arraignment.
JUSTIFICATION:
New York State's present criminal discovery rules are so restrictive
they hamper the defendant's ability to make critical decisions about
whether to plea bargain or proceed to trial and how to adequately
prepare a defense. As a result, defense attorneys turn to other systems
arraignment, each side will be able to get a better overview of the
adversary's case and decide whether to plea bargain or proceed to trial.
The ability of the parties to make these decisions will result in faster
resolution of the case, less court time, less pre-trial detention of the
defendant, and more money for the community. Moreover, the elimination
of the demand system will further speed up cases by reducing time wasted
in adjournments to review information received late, or to make motions
for more information before trial.
Furthermore, under this bill mandatory discovery will replace the
current demand system which is extremely inefficient often resulting in
a game of trading paper and a waste of time and money. If the prose-
cution and defense are required to trade information immediately after
arraign- ment, each side will be able to get a better overview of the
adversary's case and decide whether to plea bargain or proceed to trial.
The ability of the parties to make these decisions will result in faster
resolution of the case, less court time, less pre-trial detention of the
defendant, and more money for the community. Moreover, the elimination
of the demand system will further speed up cases by reducing time wasted
in adjournments to review information received late, or to make motions
for more information before trial.
Opponents to broader discovery often cite the possibility of witness
intimidation if names and addresses of witnesses must be given to the
defendant. Although it has been disputed that witness intimidation
arises as a result of broad discovery, the revised system allows for a
protective order to be issued by the court in certain instances where
disclosure would lead to improper influence, harassment, the threat of
violence, or any other jeopardy to the safety of an individual.
By amending CPL § 710.30(2) the district attorney is given thirty days
after arraignment to serve notice of a statement made by the
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
A.604B of 1993-94
A.300 of 1995-96
A.25 of 1997-98
A.375 of 1999-00
A.832 of 2001-02
A.238 of 2003-04
A.3483 of 2005-06
A.1119A of 2007-2008
A.3775 of 2009-10
A.556 of 2011-12
A.3665 of 2013-14
A.2973 of 2015-16
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the first of January next succeeding the
date on which it shall have become a law.
