New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
As a trial attorney in New York’s criminal courts, I am certainly not afraid to “go the distance” if needed to exonerate a client. However, I can unequivocally say that even if a client desperately wants his or her day in court, finding the right resolution without a trial may be the best solution to a case despite a client’s wishes. No, that does not mean selling out or accepting responsibility for a wrongful allegation, but if you can avoid the uncertainty, emotional capital, and expenditure of time and dollars, and do so with the right disposition, it very well can be an absolute win for a client. Sometimes, that win is achieved through presenting evidence mitigating or challenging the allegations and other times through motion practice such as by way of a motion to dismiss. Cases in point? Saland Law is pleased to share that in two recent matters, despite prosecutors taking unreasonable stances in cases that should have likely been resolved well before the courts took that power and responsibility away from them, we secured two dismissals after judges agreed with our applications and handed down two respective written decisions dismissing clients’ charges in their entirety. I share one of those decisions below.
Prosecutors Failed Discovery Obligations: Certificate of Compliance Invalid
Representing a man charged in a domestic violence related Third Degree Assault case, Penal Law 120.00, where he was accused of beating his then-girlfriend multiple times over many days, Saland Law raised concerns about the veracity and credibility of the complainant’s allegations from the outset. Despite our challenges and corroboration that the accuser was being untruthful, prosecutors simply refused to consider our evidence and no matter what we provided there was one excuse and flimsy explanation after another. Fortunately for our client, however, even in a criminal court where there are images of purported injuries, there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.
Regardless of the evidence’s strength or a prosecutor’s subjective view, the District Attorney must still adhere to criminal procedure laws. To that end, for prosecutors to bring a case to trial they must first file and serve a valid certificate of compliance (“COC”) confirming they satisfied their discovery obligations and, separately, they must declare their actual readiness for trial on the record. Though it sounds easy enough, an Assistant District Attorney cannot declare his or her readiness for trial and stop the speedy trial clock unless and until they provide the required discovery to the defense. Failing to share every stitch of discovery is not necessarily fatal as long as there has been due diligence on the part of the prosecution, for example. In determining whether a prosecutor’s efforts were sufficient, Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law makes it clear that, “[i]n assessing a party’s due diligence, the court shall look at the totality of the party’s efforts to comply with the provisions of this article, rather than assess the party’s efforts item by item.” (CPL 245.50[5])
Here, prosecutors failed to provide medical records reflecting a purported elbow fracture and bruising despite knowing of the records from the outset of the case (regardless of what they actually reflected) and taking months to first attempt to subpoena the hospital. Further, and of greater concern, from the case’s inception prosecutors were aware that the complainant went into a precinct twice to allegedly file a Domestic Incident Report (“DIR”). Despite her claims of victimization, the complainant’s story changed about who she spoke to and what she did or did not say. Nonetheless, she messaged a photograph to our client confirming she in fact did go to the precinct even if it remained unclear as to how long she was there and what, if anything, transpired.
Despite our requests for surveillance footage, body worn cameras and any paperwork, prosecutors did not seek to obtain any of this from the NYPD until well after the first COC was filed and after our multiple requests. Not only did the District Attorney delay in securing this evidence, or lack of evidence, but it went to the heart of whether or not the purported injuries really existed and did so at the time in question. Stated differently, prosecutors were aware the complainant went to a precinct, video surveillance would or could have captured images of her purported injuries, and if the complainant had injuries as bad as alleged the NYPD would not have merely let her walk out after she claimed to have spoken with a sergeant (and later a detective). Simply, prosecutors needed to do their job.
In response to the People’s failings, the Court wrote:
“The [C]ourt finds the People’s long delay in seeking the medical records in this case, and the lack of specific follow up by the prosecutor with regard to the prior appearances at the precinct, to be a failure of due diligence and unreasonable considering the circumstances of this case. Viewing the totality of the People’s efforts in this case the branch of the defendant’s motion to find the People’s February 20,2025 COC to be invalid is granted.”
Additionally, the Court reasoned:
“Although the People do not possess or control the medical records… considering the totality of the People’s efforts in this case, including the amount of discovery disclosed versus the amount not disclosed, the straightforward nature of this case, the fact that the People knew of the missing discovery and did not attempt to obtain it until after being contacted by defense counsel, that some of it still has not been obtained and disclosed, and that the failures have impeded the defendant from investigating the case, the court finds that the People failed to exercise due diligence and failed to act reasonably under the circumstances to obtain and provide the required automatic discovery in this case (c/ People v Bay,4l NY3d 200 120231; CPL 245.50; CPL 245.2001). As such, the court finds the People’s initial COC filed February 10,2025, to be invalid.”
Ultimately, the Court decided that “[b]ecause the People had not yet filed a valid COC, [the] statement of readiness did not toll the statutory speedy trial clock” and, as such, the case must be dismissed.
Though a trial very well could have exonerated our client, sometimes the best defense is not a factual one but one based in the law. Instead of spending our clients emotional and financial capital at a trial where there are no guarantees, a challenge on paper – supported by strong factual and legal arguments, won the day.
Saland Law is a New York City based criminal defense firm founded by former Manhattan prosecutor Jeremy Saland. To learn more about Domestic Violence crimes including arrests for any of the three degrees of Assault in New York and Saland Law’s services, follow the highlighted links above.