New York Criminal Attorney Blog

So you’ve decided to take your New York criminal case to trial. The People’s plea offer is unacceptable and your attorney, after carefully weighing the odds and risks, has advised you to reject the People’s offer and go to trial. As I said in my last blog, at the New York criminal defense law firm of Tilem & Campbell, if we take a New York criminal case to trial, we generally advise our clients to have a jury trial instead of a being tried by a single judge. So what happens next? How does a New York criminal trial proceed in a local criminal court?

Where a defendant is charged in a local criminal court with a misdemeanor, he or she is entitled to a jury trial. However, within New York City, one charged with a misdemeanor is only entitled to a jury trial if the potential sentence is more that six months. CPL § 340.40(2). The right to a jury trial in misdemeanor cases is statutory only as the New York State Constitution does not provide a right to a jury trial where the charges are less than a felony. People v. Erickson, 302 N.Y. 461, 99 N.E.2d 240 (1951); see also Article I, § 2 and Article VI, § 18 of the NYS Constitution; NY Civil Rights Law § 12 (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. However, it has been held that this section only guarantees the same right to trial found in the Sixth Amendment to the federal constitution and that right only applies where a defendant is facing more than six months incarceration).

However, the statutory right to a jury trial in misdemeanor cases in New York was passed by the Legislature in response to the United States Supreme court’s 1970 ruling in Baldwin v. New York, which essentially held that the Sixth Amendment to the

While some New York Criminal Attorneys will waive your right to a jury trial in a New York local justice court, instead opting for a trial before the judge, at Tilem & Campbell, we think that is usually a mistake. At Tilem & Campbell, our policy is that if our client is charged with a misdemeanor and the People (the prosecution) will not reduce the charge below a misdemeanor, we often advise our clients to choose a jury trial. Why? Unfortunately, at the local court level in New York, far too many Judges work hand-in-hand with the prosecution to ensure a defendant’s conviction. That is the simple truth.

Judges at the local level in New York need not be attorneys and many are not. Whether they are attorneys or not, far too many local court judges simply have no apparent understanding about the defendant’s presumption of innocence and the People’s burden to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In many small villages and towns in New York, the police station and Courthouse are in the same building. The local police and the Judge share the same parking lot, ride the elevator together and see each other regularly in the building. Therefore, only on the rarest occasion will a Judge at the local court level find that a police officer lacked probable cause at a suppression hearing or that an accusatory instrument is insufficient or otherwise rule in a defendant’s favor on a meaningful issue. It would be very hard for the same judge that sees that police officer in the building to now decide that he didn’t tell the truth at your trial.

Trials before judges in local criminal courts are far too often nothing more that an exercise in futility. The defendant’s guilt is a foregone conclusion. Do you really think a local judge is going to go against the local police and prosecutor that he or she must deal with on a regular basis?

If you have been convicted of an offense in New York or elsewhere that triggers New York State’s sex offender registration laws, your criminal defense attorney must be familiar with the New York Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter “SORA”). Registration as a sex offender in New York is governed by Article 6-C of the New York Correction Law. Article 6-C is referred to and cited as the Sex Offender Registration Act. NY Corr. Law 168. The New York State Legislature’s passage of SORA brought New York into compliance with the federal Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Program (hereinafter the Wetterling Act) (42 U.S.C.A. ‘ 14071). Any state that failed to comply with the Wetterling Act would lose ten percent of its Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act funding. 42 U.S.C.A. 14071(g)(1)(A).

Under the Wetterling Act, the United States Attorney General shall establish guidelines for State programs that require a person who is convicted of a criminal offense against a minor or of a sexually violent offense or who is considered a sexually violent predator to register a current address with the local chief law enforcement officer.. 42 U.S.C.A. ‘ 14071(a)(1). One required to report in one state must inform that state when they move to another state and must also inform their new state of residence that they were required to report in their old state. The state they are leaving must also have procedures in place to inform the state the offender is moving to that the offender was required to register in their state. 42 U.S.C.A. ‘ 14071(b)(5).

The Wetterling Act also set forth guidelines establishing the length of time an offender must register for. The length of registration is either 10 years or life depending on the offense. The registration period commences on the date the offender is either released from incarceration, placed on parole or placed in supervised release. 42 U.S.C.A. ‘ 14071(b)(6).

A New York State Prison inmate retains some basic due process rights despite being imprisoned. An inmate charged with a serious violation faces substantial punishment and should seek the advise of an experienced New York lawyer. When serious violations are alleged against the inmate, a Superintendent’s Hearing will be held. If the inmate is found guilty at the hearing, he must first file an administrative appeal. If his administrative appeal is denied, he can then file an Article 78 petition. An experienced New York attorney should be retained to represent the inmate on his or her Article 78 petition. One due process violation that should result in the reversal and even expungement of a guilty finding is the failure of the prison officials to tape record the hearing. All Superintendents’ Hearings must be “electronically recorded”. 7 NYCRR 254.6(a)(2).

The absence of the tape of the evidence relied upon by a hearing officer in a disciplinary hearing is a violation of the prisoner’s fundamental due process rights. Scott v. Coughlin, 161 Misc.2d 777, 615 N.Y.S.2d 828 (Dutchess Cnty 1994).

The Scott case involved a Tier III Superintendent’s Hearing where Michael Scott was found guilty of assault and was sentenced to 365 days in the Special Housing Unit and six months loss of good time. Scott’s administrative appeals were denied.

Experienced New York Criminal Attorney’s who are familiar with the New York Criminal Procedure Law are familiar with CPL § 210.40 which authorizes Judges to dismiss cases in the “Interest of Justice” and the 10 factors that Judges need consider when deciding whether to grant such a motion. The Motion to Dismiss in the Interest of Justice is also known to many New York lawyers as a “Clayton” motion after the 1973 case that originally discussed the parameters of this type of motion. At Tilem & Campbell, our criminal lawyers have successfully used Clayton Motions to resolve difficult cases and protect the interests of our clients.

Our experienced criminal attorney’s have also used the factor delineated in CPL §210.40 to resolve serious criminal cases by addressing the factors in letters to prosecutors. By using the Clayton factors to show a prosecutor that a Judge might dismiss the case, we are sometimes able to convince a prosecutor to offer an ACD or a Violation when they had previously refused to do so. This strategy has been used by lawyers at this firm to resolve cases such as Assault, Insurance Fraud and Gun Possession.

Recently Judge Rory Bellantoni, of the Westchester County Court in White Plains, after an analysis of all of the factors delineated in CPL §210.40 dismissed a felony Sexual Abuse case in the interest of justice. In that case, prosecutors were offering an ACD or a dismissal of the charges and then suddenly withdrew the offer. A number of other factors also supported the dismissal. The case demonstrates that even very serious felony cases can be dismissed under Clayton and not only less serious misdemeanors.