4 charts that explain how discovery reform has affected New York’s criminal cases

One of the most controversial elements of the $254 billion state budget lawmakers reached this week is a change to New York’s evidence sharing laws for criminal cases.

Since 2020, a measure known as discovery reform has required district attorneys to share more evidence with defendants, and more quickly. But some prosecutors have urged lawmakers to adjust the measure, saying it led to a surge in case dismissals and made it too difficult to hold defendants accountable.

A Monday budget deal includes several of the prosecutors’ proposed changes.

Brian Mahanna, counsel to Gov. Kathy Hochul, said the Legislature agreed to give judges more discretion in situations when prosecutors fail to turn over evidence. They also limited the types of records district attorneys have to give criminal defendants before trial.

A new report finds discovery reform in most of the state has had virtually no effect on the number of cases dismissed. In New York City, dismissals related to pretrial deadlines have spiked since the changes took effect — but only for certain categories of cases.

The report provides the clearest picture yet of a policy that aimed to make the legal system fairer, but has caused consternation for prosecutors who say the requirements are too stringent. The data underscores how uniquely the laws have affected the five boroughs.

“There is an implementation problem in New York City,” said Michael Rempel, director of the Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College, which published the report Monday. “If there was something about the law that inherently required negative outcomes, then we would see it in closer to 62 counties of the state.”

Here are some key findings from the report:

Researchers found that discovery reform took the biggest toll on lower-level cases in the five boroughs and neighboring counties.

Failing to turn over discovery materials before legal deadlines can result in case dismissals, and prosecutors have argued that discovery reform has led to too many dismissals.

The report found that the percentage of misdemeanor cases dismissed in New York City because prosecutors weren’t ready for trial in time increased from 9% in 2019 to 49% last year, according to the report. For felonies, the percentage jumped from 2% to 23% during that time.

Researchers did not record the same jump in dismissals in most of the state.

Researchers found no jump in dismissals related to pretrial deadlines for cases when someone was indicted on a felony.

In New York City and the rest of the state, the rate of “speedy trial” dismissals for indicted felonies — some of the most serious cases — remained below 1% each year, according to the report.

The data doesn’t include cases with murder, criminally negligent homicide and certain types of manslaughter charges, because “speedy trial” laws don’t apply to those crimes.

New York City district attorneys’ offices rarely turned over evidence for indicted felony cases within the new legally mandated deadlines, researchers found.

Prosecutors are supposed to share discovery materials within 20 days for people in detention and 35 days for people who are released while awaiting trial. They met those deadlines in about 5% and 10% of indicted felony cases, respectively, according to the report. When New York City prosecutors received a 30-day extension, the percentage was still below 20%, researchers said.

The data alone can’t definitively explain why discovery reform has had such uneven effects on different court systems.

Rempel has a few theories. He said the rise in dismissals in New York City and suburban counties is likely due in part to the higher volume of cases churning through those courts. Bigger district attorneys’ offices in the five boroughs also seem to have struggled to adjust to new workflows, he said. He also said it tends to take longer for prosecutors in New York City to get evidence from the NYPD, compared to prosecutors who work with smaller police departments elsewhere in the state.

A bill proposed by state Sen. Zellnor Myrie and Assemblymember Micah Lasher would require law enforcement agencies to allow district attorney’s offices to access electronic records systems directly, so prosecutors don’t have to wait for police to turn over evidence.

But prosecutors have been pushing for changes that would go even further. They asked lawmakers to codify a 2023 ruling from the state’s highest court, which said district attorneys shouldn’t be punished when they act “in good faith” to meet their obligations. Some district attorneys have also said they should only have to share evidence that is “relevant” to the case — a narrower requirement than the discovery reform standard of all “related” materials.

Defense attorneys have ardently opposed adjustments to the current discovery laws that would give district attorneys more power to decide what evidence should be turned over.

“ It's essentially taking pieces of evidence and saying, ‘Oh, this won't shed doubt on their case. It's too insignificant. This isn't actually relevant,’” said Alana Sivin, a former public defender who now works at the Vera Institute of Justice. “But the defense attorney will be able to say, ‘OK, this is a piece of evidence that might seem insignificant, but actually it is relevant.’”

A Gothamist review of discovery-related court decisions found several recent instances in which judges chose not to dismiss a case because they thought that prosecutors had acted “in good faith.”

A Brooklyn judge in March upheld a case of criminal mischief and animal injury after prosecutors claimed that a USB drive they mailed to defense attorneys with evidence was ripped from the package in transit.

But judges have also agreed to dismiss cases when they felt prosecutors weren’t diligent enough in their efforts to share evidence. Last month, a Manhattan judge threw out a robbery case after prosecutors failed to turn over evidence related to the alleged victim’s injuries.