But hours after the Senate’s action, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, who runs the Assembly with an iron fist, suddenly pulled the rug out from under the Senate
Three years ago, the New York State Legislature passed the Challenging Wrongful Convictions Act. This historic bill gave innocent persons who wereBut under extreme pressure from the New York State District Attorneys Association, Gov.
Kathy Hochul vetoed the legislation at the 11th hour. She insisted that the Legislature revise the bill more in line with the District Attorneys’ objections. What were the prosecutors’ objections? They argued it would eliminate “finality” in criminal convictions.
But should there be “finality” if a convicted man or woman is actually innocent? They argued that plea deals would be able to be challenged many years later. But that’s misleading; only plea deals where a defendant makes a strong argument of innocence. They argued that giving innocent people an opportunity to challenge the reliability of their convictions would overburden the criminal justice system?
But is it a burden on prosecutors who swear to uphold justice to investigate a case where the defendant has made a strong showing of innocence? Now, three years later, after much give and take to accommodate Governor Hochul’s concerns, and by implication many of the concerns of the state District Attorneys,But hours after the Senate’s action, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, who runs the Assembly with an iron fist, suddenly pulled the rug out from under the Senate and announced that he would not allow the Assembly to vote on the bill.
Why did Heastie kill the law? It’s not entirely clear. Was he afraid Governor Hochul would veto the bill again? Was he caving to some Democrats in the Assembly who are gun-shy of offending prosecutors?
Was he afraid that since criminal justice reforms are never politically fail safe issues, there’s always the conservative attack of being “soft on crime. ” But for those who believe that innocent people who were convicted of serious felonies and have been incarcerated for many years, perhaps for the rest of their lives, should have a reasonable opportunity to prove their innocence, Speaker Heastie’s surrender to prosecutors is shameful.
Prosecutors know better than anyone that juries make mistakes and that innocent people plead guilty. But they argue nonetheless that it’s a cost of a legal system that the public must accept, however grotesque the consequences are to an innocent person and their family. I was a prosecutor in New York.
I learned first-hand that too many innocent defendants were charged with serious crimes despite weak evidence, that too many innocent defendants pleaded guilty to avoid a much harsher punishment if they went to trial and were found guilty, and that too many prosecutors accepted this harsh injustice as an unfortunate consequence of a complex institution of justice, much like doctors who accept misdiagnoses and prognoses as unfortunate consequences of an overburdened health care system. Untold numbers of innocent people get convicted of serious felonies each year, either by a jury verdict or a plea of guilty.
Over 300 innocent defendants have been exonerated in New York in the past 30 years, resulting in over 3,000 years of lives lost due to wrongful convictions. And as with criminal justice generally, the impact hits hardest on innocent Black defendants, who spend much more time in prison than innocent white defendants, approximately 14 more years in prison due to a wrongful conviction, nearly twice as long as white exonerees. One might ask why an innocent person would plead guilty.
Well, if the choice is stark – plead guilty with a substantial reduction in the punishment or risk conviction by a jury and get sentenced to a jail cell possibly for the rest of one’s life – many defendants might opt to plead guilty. Young and vulnerable defendants who are innocent are the most likely persons to plead guilty. New York State ranks third in the nation in wrongful convictions, behind Texas and Illinois.
Many thousands of cases of innocent defendants who have been legally exonerated have been studied to learn about the causes of these tragic breakdowns in the criminal justice system, and to determine who was responsible for such a gross miscarriage of justice. The answer typically is prosecutors and police, who often see only evidence of guilt, and do not want to look at evidence of innocence.
It’s disingenuous for prosecutors to attack a law that offers innocent people a chance to prove their innocence when it was the prosecutor who was responsible for the wrongful conviction. But under present legal procedures, proving a defendant’s innocence is an awesome challenge, especially in New York State, and especially if there is no forensic evidence available and accessible. New York is one of the most restrictive states for innocent people seeking to prove their innocence.
The new bill as modified is relatively modest.
It would give a person who has made a strong claim of innocence access to a court-appointed lawyer ; an opportunity to have evidence tested; the right to appeal if a judge denies the defendant’s claim just as prosecutors have the right to appeal if the defendant wins; the ability to overturn a conviction based on a “reasonable probability” of innocence, which is a much more forgiving standard than the current rule whereby a defendant must demonstrate innocence by “clear and convincing” proof; broader access to discovery of evidence in the prosecution’s possession; and an opportunity after a guilty plea to prove innocence which currently is not allowed under the New York Court of Appeals precedent in People v.
Tiger . It’s hard to understand why the governor and prosecutors resist so feverishly a modest law that gives an innocent person a realistic opportunity to prove his or her innocence. What are they afraid of? That a convicted person may be freed?
That the criminal justice system may be shown to have made serious errors? That some prosecutors may be shown to have caused an innocent person to suffer? If these are the reasons, then it’s even more difficult for the public to have confidence in the integrity of a legal system that appears callous, insensitive, and inhumane.
Freddy Peralta’s struggles has put Mets future in clear jeopardyBronx Pride 2026: A guide to LGBTQ+ events across the boroughNYPD identifies Bronx creep who broke into home and committed sex act in front of 8-year-old girl
Please follow us on Google to support us United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Marshall's Stockwell III portable speaker offers more than 40 hours of use per chargeMarshall's Stockwell III portable speaker runs 40 hours on a charge and costs $250.
Read more »
Fresh blow for California’s Carl’s Jr as iconic burger chain to close more storesDespite generating more than $6 million in monthly revenue, the franchise group has reportedly been losing more than $600,000 per month this year.
Read more »
Major Carl’s Jr operator reportedly set to shutter, sell dozens of California locationsOne of California's largest fast-food franchise operators is moving to close and sell dozens of burger restaurants following a bankruptcy filing.
Read more »
Danielle Olivera Denies Giving Carl Radke Hand Job Amid Lindsay Hubbard's ClaimsDanielle Olivera is responding to Lindsay Hubbard's claim that she gave Carl Radke a hand job in an Uber in 2019. Olivera clarifies that it was an over-the-pants hand job, not a real one, and calls the rumor a lie. Carl Radke also addressed the incident, stating it was 'spun out of control.' The controversy stems from the 'Summer House' reality show cast and their complicated relationships.
Read more »