New York DAs offices Forum

[Foodz]

Hi all. I am very interested in working for a New York DAs office. I couldn't apply right after law schools as I had a clerkship lined up. I graduated law school in 2019. Right after law school I clerked at a federal district court (not sdny/edny) and I am currently at a big law firm in nyc although I am about to leave very imminently for a circuit clerkship for a year which would end in September 2022. I see job postings for Bronx and queens DA classes of fall 2022 already. Are these positions I should be applying for or are they designed for people right after law school and I would apply to more specific positions closer to my clerkship end? I know nothing about the NYC Das offices hiring policies/timeline and I am having trouble finding information online so any advice would be great. I am also interested in Brooklyn and Manhattan DA offices, but have no clue when they hire as well.

[Anonymous User]

Hi all. I am very interested in working for a New York DAs office. I couldn't apply right after law schools as I had a clerkship lined up. I graduated law school in 2019. Right after law school I clerked at a federal district court (not sdny/edny) and I am currently at a big law firm in nyc although I am about to leave very imminently for a circuit clerkship for a year which would end in September 2022. I see job postings for Bronx and queens DA classes of fall 2022 already. Are these positions I should be applying for or are they designed for people right after law school and I would apply to more specific positions closer to my clerkship end? I know nothing about the NYC Das offices hiring policies/timeline and I am having trouble finding information online so any advice would be great. I am also interested in Brooklyn and Manhattan DA offices, but have no clue when they hire as well.

At the risk of giving advice that wasn’t directly requested:

I had a background/aspirations similar to yours earlier in my career. Fedclerked, Went to a major market Dao for a few years, then went market biglaw. I like Biglaw way more, which I know sounds crazy. Not sure how else to put this but the people who do high level clerkships have a certain….intellectual hunger…that won’t likely be quenched in the DAs office.

Like I imagine is the situation for you now, all I wanted to do at end of clerkship was argue, trials, investigations. And it’s true I got a ton of reps. And as I imagine you feel, money wasn’t of paramount importance to me at that stage of my life. Suffice to say that you might truly feel you absolutely do not want biglaw, but I still recommend you go for it.

in hindsight I can assure you that (1) biglaw lit isn’t half as bad as the whiners on these forums make it seem, and more importantly, (2) you should absolutely get a biglaw resume stamp (call it 3 years) under your belt before jumping to the DAs office, and (3) life comes at you fast and it’s easier to have a bunch of money when it does.

I succeeded in going fedclerk-Dao-biglaw, but it was really tough despite my strong credentials. Unfortunately, adas get a rep for often not being biglaw material. So being an Ada for a few years can actually serve to disqualify somebody from Biglaw who would otherwise be qualified on paper, in a number of hiring partners’ eyes (right or wrong).

At my major market Dao, each class year there were a small number of people (1-2) who did just that. They came from Biglaw after getting a resume stamp. No doubt they’ll all be looking to go ausa in a few years after getting some reps at the Dao.

Finally, having a financial nest egg in your pocket when you move to the Dao salary is very much worth delaying the Dao jump for another few years.

Let me know if you’d like me to PM you if you wanna continue the discussion.

[Foodz]

So I did a district clerkship for a year and now I have actually been in big law for almost a year although about to leave for my circuit clerkship, and my biggest complaint about it is that I’m not getting a ton of substantive experience compared to clerking when I was research and writing all day. My whole life I have been doing things for the credential or pay or prestige, and I have moved around and I have switched jobs a lot and I’m kind of looking to find that job that I’m passionate about and that is rewarding and I think it may be at a nyc DAs office as I feel like I could learn and grow and get real experience. In big law, I have been able to draft several substantive motions but for the last month or so (maybe in part because I am leaving to clerk) I have been on doc reviews and handling a lot of logistical things as opposed to doing intellectually stimulating work. I am very excited to going back to clerking and being able to go to sittings and research and write all day again, but after that I want to be in a job that is equally as rewarding and I’m not sure that big law is that based on my current experiences.

[Anonymous User]

So I did a district clerkship for a year and now I have actually been in big law for almost a year although about to leave for my circuit clerkship, and my biggest complaint about it is that I’m not getting a ton of substantive experience compared to clerking when I was research and writing all day. My whole life I have been doing things for the credential or pay or prestige, and I have moved around and I have switched jobs a lot and I’m kind of looking to find that job that I’m passionate about and that is rewarding and I think it may be at a nyc DAs office as I feel like I could learn and grow and get real experience. In big law, I have been able to draft several substantive motions but for the last month or so (maybe in part because I am leaving to clerk) I have been on doc reviews and handling a lot of logistical things as opposed to doing intellectually stimulating work. I am very excited to going back to clerking and being able to go to sittings and research and write all day again, but after that I want to be in a job that is equally as rewarding and I’m not sure that big law is that based on my current experiences.

Okay so it seems that I incorrectly inferred you were going law school-d court clerkship-coa clerkship.

But even knowing you’ve been in biglaw for a year doesn’t change my advice. If I were in your shoes, I’d give it one more big go at a different firm post COA. I’d really cash in on that coa, get a signing bonus. Try to make sure that whatever you’ll be doing will be a very substantive group (think Jones day appellate group or something). In this market, in theory, you’ll have your pick of junior/mid-ish lateral gigs post COA. Not all biglaw experiences are the same (at least not in lit), and I doubt this subsequent hypothetical firm will want to waste your talents/creds on doc review.

Let’s assume you like prosecution. Eventually you’ll probably wanna go ausa in a competitive district (e.g., SDNY). Already your creds will be pretty competitive, but if you add another couple years of biglaw to your res before spending a couple/few years at the Dao, they’ll be that much stronger.

And whenever you do go to the DAs office, if I were you, I’d gun hard for manhattan. Start networking with current adas there right now so you know people on the inside. Alternative idea is DC where it’s basically a DAs office but it’s technically fed, and Brooklyn DAs office could be cool as well. Other major metro areas (LA, Chicago, boston, etc.) would be my next choice if I were in your shoes.

[speckler]

So I did a district clerkship for a year and now I have actually been in big law for almost a year although about to leave for my circuit clerkship, and my biggest complaint about it is that I’m not getting a ton of substantive experience compared to clerking when I was research and writing all day. My whole life I have been doing things for the credential or pay or prestige, and I have moved around and I have switched jobs a lot and I’m kind of looking to find that job that I’m passionate about and that is rewarding and I think it may be at a nyc DAs office as I feel like I could learn and grow and get real experience. In big law, I have been able to draft several substantive motions but for the last month or so (maybe in part because I am leaving to clerk) I have been on doc reviews and handling a lot of logistical things as opposed to doing intellectually stimulating work. I am very excited to going back to clerking and being able to go to sittings and research and write all day again, but after that I want to be in a job that is equally as rewarding and I’m not sure that big law is that based on my current experiences.

Okay so it seems that I incorrectly inferred you were going law school-d court clerkship-coa clerkship.

But even knowing you’ve been in biglaw for a year doesn’t change my advice. If I were in your shoes, I’d give it one more big go at a different firm post COA. I’d really cash in on that coa, get a signing bonus. Try to make sure that whatever you’ll be doing will be a very substantive group (think Jones day appellate group or something). In this market, in theory, you’ll have your pick of junior/mid-ish lateral gigs post COA. Not all biglaw experiences are the same (at least not in lit), and I doubt this subsequent hypothetical firm will want to waste your talents/creds on doc review.

Let’s assume you like prosecution. Eventually you’ll probably wanna go ausa in a competitive district (e.g., SDNY). Already your creds will be pretty competitive, but if you add another couple years of biglaw to your res before spending a couple/few years at the Dao, they’ll be that much stronger.

And whenever you do go to the DAs office, if I were you, I’d gun hard for manhattan. Start networking with current adas there right now so you know people on the inside. Alternative idea is DC where it’s basically a DAs office but it’s technically fed, and Brooklyn DAs office could be cool as well. Other major metro areas (LA, Chicago, boston, etc.) would be my next choice if I were in your shoes.

Anon, could you PM me? Would love to get your advice on the job switch.

[Anonymous User]

So I did a district clerkship for a year and now I have actually been in big law for almost a year although about to leave for my circuit clerkship, and my biggest complaint about it is that I’m not getting a ton of substantive experience compared to clerking when I was research and writing all day. My whole life I have been doing things for the credential or pay or prestige, and I have moved around and I have switched jobs a lot and I’m kind of looking to find that job that I’m passionate about and that is rewarding and I think it may be at a nyc DAs office as I feel like I could learn and grow and get real experience. In big law, I have been able to draft several substantive motions but for the last month or so (maybe in part because I am leaving to clerk) I have been on doc reviews and handling a lot of logistical things as opposed to doing intellectually stimulating work. I am very excited to going back to clerking and being able to go to sittings and research and write all day again, but after that I want to be in a job that is equally as rewarding and I’m not sure that big law is that based on my current experiences.

Okay so it seems that I incorrectly inferred you were going law school-d court clerkship-coa clerkship.

But even knowing you’ve been in biglaw for a year doesn’t change my advice. If I were in your shoes, I’d give it one more big go at a different firm post COA. I’d really cash in on that coa, get a signing bonus. Try to make sure that whatever you’ll be doing will be a very substantive group (think Jones day appellate group or something). In this market, in theory, you’ll have your pick of junior/mid-ish lateral gigs post COA. Not all biglaw experiences are the same (at least not in lit), and I doubt this subsequent hypothetical firm will want to waste your talents/creds on doc review.

Let’s assume you like prosecution. Eventually you’ll probably wanna go ausa in a competitive district (e.g., SDNY). Already your creds will be pretty competitive, but if you add another couple years of biglaw to your res before spending a couple/few years at the Dao, they’ll be that much stronger.

And whenever you do go to the DAs office, if I were you, I’d gun hard for manhattan. Start networking with current adas there right now so you know people on the inside. Alternative idea is DC where it’s basically a DAs office but it’s technically fed, and Brooklyn DAs office could be cool as well. Other major metro areas (LA, Chicago, boston, etc.) would be my next choice if I were in your shoes.

Anon, could you PM me? Would love to get your advice on the job switch.

No prob. Sorry—hate going anon. Only do it when I’m giving pretty detailed info about my career path.

Always happy to answer questions either directly via PM or in threads like these, though.

[Anonymous User]

Anon here-As a former ADA in NYC and current federal prosecutor, I wouldn't waste my time trying to be a DA in any county in NYC. The position has been stripped of all power and responsibility, and has been reduced to paper pushing, with ADAs scrambling to meet discovery deadlines, no defendants receiving bail which allows them to commit more crimes and not take pleas when they are clearly guilty, and just being hampered in every way. If you want to truly be a prosecutor, aim to be a fed. It is not easy but it is worth it.

[lavarman84]

Anon here-As a former ADA in NYC and current federal prosecutor, I wouldn't waste my time trying to be a DA in any county in NYC. The position has been stripped of all power and responsibility, and has been reduced to paper pushing, with ADAs scrambling to meet discovery deadlines, no defendants receiving bail which allows them to commit more crimes and not take pleas when they are clearly guilty, and just being hampered in every way. If you want to truly be a prosecutor, aim to be a fed. It is not easy but it is worth it.

Prove they're guilty then. Locking people in jail because they're not wealthy enough to afford bail doesn't create an equitable or just system. If they must remain in jail, it should be because the prosecution proved they deserve to be placed in pretrial detention.

[Anonymous User]

Anon here-As a former ADA in NYC and current federal prosecutor, I wouldn't waste my time trying to be a DA in any county in NYC. The position has been stripped of all power and responsibility, and has been reduced to paper pushing, with ADAs scrambling to meet discovery deadlines, no defendants receiving bail which allows them to commit more crimes and not take pleas when they are clearly guilty, and just being hampered in every way. If you want to truly be a prosecutor, aim to be a fed. It is not easy but it is worth it.

Prove they're guilty then. Locking people in jail because they're not wealthy enough to afford bail doesn't create an equitable or just system. If they must remain in jail, it should be because the prosecution proved they deserve to be placed in pretrial detention.

Same Anon-I don't think you understand how impractical that line of thinking is.

Individuals should have bail set on them for numerous reasons, one to ensure that they return to court. Another being that they are a danger to society for numerous reasons (type of crime, frequency of crime etc). Statistics show that wealthy individuals often do not commit the types of violent crime that we as a society have agreed is abhorrent, in contrast to individuals who are lower or even sometimes middle class. It is the need to remove violent individuals by placing people in pre-trial detention (who also happen to be lower class or poor) is in the interest of society. If violent or repeat offenders are not put in jail, theoretically there isn't any incentive for an individual to resolve their case, and accept their guilt for the crime committed, as there is no acceptance or imposition of punishment for the wrong they have committed.

By having individuals at liberty, it creates a disincentive for guilty criminals to plead guilty, because they do not want to accept responsibility and relinquish their liberty. The government must then prove its case against this individual, which is resource intensive: it requires prosecutors, paralegals, defense counsel, the defendant, judges, court clerks, stenographers, witnesses, law enforcement, civilian jurors, to all be present, prepared, engaged and working to a just outcome. To do this with every case that occurs in NYC would cause a collapse (or in many counties currently, cause delays) in the judicial system, unless you inject significant resources to expand the number of prosecutors, judges, defense counsel, court staff, court buildings etc.

In sum, the laws have removed the arguments/laws for prosecutors, and the law for judges, to keep people in pre-trial detention in NYC. This has allowed for known criminals to commit multiple crimes, while pending charges, with the almost certainty of knowing they will remain free if arrested. It creates a disincentive to plead guilty, and creates an incentive for criminals to continue criminal conduct, and delay their cases as long as possible.

[Quichelorraine]

In sum, the laws have removed the arguments/laws for prosecutors, and the law for judges, to keep people in pre-trial detention in NYC. This has allowed for known criminals to commit multiple crimes, while pending charges, with the almost certainty of knowing they will remain free if arrested. It creates a disincentive to plead guilty, and creates an incentive for criminals to continue criminal conduct, and delay their cases as long as possible.

I'm not sure this makes sense. So you remain at liberty, with the "incentive" to delay and commit more crimes while your cases are pending, all to . . . eventually be convicted after trial and receive lengthy consecutive sentences due to the pattern of criminality you exhibited while under indictment for cases X and Y?

Also, I mean, "lock them up so they'll have the incentive to plead guilty" has the well-documented effect of encouraging innocent people to plead guilty too.

That said:

Statistics show that wealthy individuals often do not commit the types of violent crime that we as a society have agreed is abhorrent, in contrast to individuals who are lower or even sometimes middle class

I suppose we're arguing from different universes, then.

ANYWAY.

The people I know in the DA's offices seem to have a really good time, and don't consider their jobs "paper pushing" just because of the discovery deadlines and trial modifications.

[lavarman84]

Same Anon-I don't think you understand how impractical that line of thinking is.

Individuals should have bail set on them for numerous reasons, one to ensure that they return to court.

If they can't afford bail, the setting of bail is a de facto pretrial detention. The Constitution might be "impractical" sometimes, but our rights are still worth preserving.

Another being that they are a danger to society for numerous reasons (type of crime, frequency of crime etc).

If they're a danger to society, they shouldn't be let out of pretrial detention because they have financial means. But that requires the prosecution to sufficiently prove that they are a danger to society in order to merit pretrial detention.

Statistics show that wealthy individuals often do not commit the types of violent crime that we as a society have agreed is abhorrent, in contrast to individuals who are lower or even sometimes middle class.

This isn't a rational argument for tying whether or not you get out of jail to wealth. Wealthy people who are having to pay bond are accused of committing a crime too. Locking up poor people because they're statistically more likely to commit "abhorrent" violent crimes isn't a sufficient justification for depriving them of liberty.

It is the need to remove violent individuals by placing people in pre-trial detention (who also happen to be lower class or poor) is in the interest of society. If violent or repeat offenders are not put in jail, theoretically there isn't any incentive for an individual to resolve their case, and accept their guilt for the crime committed, as there is no acceptance or imposition of punishment for the wrong they have committed.

Good. Place them in pretrial detention then. But that entails the prosecution proving certain things. Using bail as an end run around having to satisfy your burden of proof for pretrial detention is unacceptable, and in my mind, unconstitutional.

By having individuals at liberty, it creates a disincentive for guilty criminals to plead guilty, because they do not want to accept responsibility and relinquish their liberty. The government must then prove its case against this individual, which is resource intensive: it requires prosecutors, paralegals, defense counsel, the defendant, judges, court clerks, stenographers, witnesses, law enforcement, civilian jurors, to all be present, prepared, engaged and working to a just outcome. To do this with every case that occurs in NYC would cause a collapse (or in many counties currently, cause delays) in the judicial system, unless you inject significant resources to expand the number of prosecutors, judges, defense counsel, court staff, court buildings etc.

We should not be in the habit of depriving people of liberty because it is more convenient to the prosecution. There are plenty of reasons why a guilty person might want to plead. And as our issues with bail have shown us, there are plenty of reasons why innocent people plead guilty when you use unaffordable bail to keep them in jail. New York's system isn't perfect. But they're on the right path.

In sum, the laws have removed the arguments/laws for prosecutors, and the law for judges, to keep people in pre-trial detention in NYC. This has allowed for known criminals to commit multiple crimes, while pending charges, with the almost certainty of knowing they will remain free if arrested. It creates a disincentive to plead guilty, and creates an incentive for criminals to continue criminal conduct, and delay their cases as long as possible.

Okay, this is compelling. How have the changes in the law eliminated arguments for prosecutors to keep people in pretrial detention? That's something that might be worth retooling. But it shouldn't be through the prosecutor and court setting bail a defendant can't afford. It should be through the prosecutor satisfying the burden of proof as to why pretrial detention is necessary. It seems to me that there should be a mechanism to impose pretrial detention (at minimum for a period of time) on an accused who keeps committing crimes while on release. If that's not an option, I'd offer that as a common sense change.

[Anonymous User]

In sum, the laws have removed the arguments/laws for prosecutors, and the law for judges, to keep people in pre-trial detention in NYC. This has allowed for known criminals to commit multiple crimes, while pending charges, with the almost certainty of knowing they will remain free if arrested. It creates a disincentive to plead guilty, and creates an incentive for criminals to continue criminal conduct, and delay their cases as long as possible.

I'm not sure this makes sense. So you remain at liberty, with the "incentive" to delay and commit more crimes while your cases are pending, all to . . . eventually be convicted after trial and receive lengthy consecutive sentences due to the pattern of criminality you exhibited while under indictment for cases X and Y?

Also, I mean, "lock them up so they'll have the incentive to plead guilty" has the well-documented effect of encouraging innocent people to plead guilty too.

That said:

Statistics show that wealthy individuals often do not commit the types of violent crime that we as a society have agreed is abhorrent, in contrast to individuals who are lower or even sometimes middle class

I suppose we're arguing from different universes, then.

ANYWAY.

The people I know in the DA's offices seem to have a really good time, and don't consider their jobs "paper pushing" just because of the discovery deadlines and trial modifications.

"I suppose we're arguing from different universes, then.?

We must be, and I am sorry about the Goldman IB Analysts terrorizing your neighborhood, armed with the hi-point 9mms that they use to commit armed robberies, shootings at rivals, and other violent crime.

"Also, I mean, "lock them up so they'll have the incentive to plead guilty" has the well-documented effect of encouraging innocent people to plead guilty too."

Yes it does, however the actual risk (and likelihood) of that is low, compared to the risk of setting dangerous and repeat criminals free.

"So you remain at liberty, with the "incentive" to delay and commit more crimes while your cases are pending, all to . . . eventually be convicted after trial and receive lengthy consecutive sentences due to the pattern of criminality you exhibited while under indictment for cases X and Y?"

Despite what you may think, delaying a case is in the best interest of a defendant. Witnesses forget (civilian and law enforcement), cannot be located, or no longer care as time goes on. Additionally, people are not arrested for every crime they commit. An individual could be back on the street committing numerous crimes that will either go unreported, or reported with no arrest. You must not practice in NYC (at least not criminal law), as you know that in almost all cases judges will run sentences concurrently, not consecutively, despite being convicted of multiple offenses. Also, I hope to dispel your notion of "lengthy" sentences, as it is often not the norm, and now most DAs offices are not seeking lengthy sentences due to perceived public opinion.

"The people I know in the DA's offices seem to have a really good time, and don't consider their jobs "paper pushing" just because of the discovery deadlines and trial modifications."

They are probably lying to you because they don't want to tell you the truth only for you to make an uninformed, biased, politically popular opinion about the nature of the judicial system.

[Anonymous User]

Same Anon-I don't think you understand how impractical that line of thinking is.

Individuals should have bail set on them for numerous reasons, one to ensure that they return to court.

If they can't afford bail, the setting of bail is a de facto pretrial detention. The Constitution might be "impractical" sometimes, but our rights are still worth preserving.

Another being that they are a danger to society for numerous reasons (type of crime, frequency of crime etc).

If they're a danger to society, they shouldn't be let out of pretrial detention because they have financial means. But that requires the prosecution to sufficiently prove that they are a danger to society in order to merit pretrial detention.

Statistics show that wealthy individuals often do not commit the types of violent crime that we as a society have agreed is abhorrent, in contrast to individuals who are lower or even sometimes middle class.

This isn't a rational argument for tying whether or not you get out of jail to wealth. Wealthy people who are having to pay bond are accused of committing a crime too. Locking up poor people because they're statistically more likely to commit "abhorrent" violent crimes isn't a sufficient justification for depriving them of liberty.

It is the need to remove violent individuals by placing people in pre-trial detention (who also happen to be lower class or poor) is in the interest of society. If violent or repeat offenders are not put in jail, theoretically there isn't any incentive for an individual to resolve their case, and accept their guilt for the crime committed, as there is no acceptance or imposition of punishment for the wrong they have committed.

Good. Place them in pretrial detention then. But that entails the prosecution proving certain things. Using bail as an end run around having to satisfy your burden of proof for pretrial detention is unacceptable, and in my mind, unconstitutional.

By having individuals at liberty, it creates a disincentive for guilty criminals to plead guilty, because they do not want to accept responsibility and relinquish their liberty. The government must then prove its case against this individual, which is resource intensive: it requires prosecutors, paralegals, defense counsel, the defendant, judges, court clerks, stenographers, witnesses, law enforcement, civilian jurors, to all be present, prepared, engaged and working to a just outcome. To do this with every case that occurs in NYC would cause a collapse (or in many counties currently, cause delays) in the judicial system, unless you inject significant resources to expand the number of prosecutors, judges, defense counsel, court staff, court buildings etc.

We should not be in the habit of depriving people of liberty because it is more convenient to the prosecution. There are plenty of reasons why a guilty person might want to plead. And as our issues with bail have shown us, there are plenty of reasons why innocent people plead guilty when you use unaffordable bail to keep them in jail. New York's system isn't perfect. But they're on the right path.

In sum, the laws have removed the arguments/laws for prosecutors, and the law for judges, to keep people in pre-trial detention in NYC. This has allowed for known criminals to commit multiple crimes, while pending charges, with the almost certainty of knowing they will remain free if arrested. It creates a disincentive to plead guilty, and creates an incentive for criminals to continue criminal conduct, and delay their cases as long as possible.

Okay, this is compelling. How have the changes in the law eliminated arguments for prosecutors to keep people in pretrial detention? That's something that might be worth retooling. But it shouldn't be through the prosecutor and court setting bail a defendant can't afford. It should be through the prosecutor satisfying the burden of proof as to why pretrial detention is necessary. It seems to me that there should be a mechanism to impose pretrial detention (at minimum for a period of time) on an accused who keeps committing crimes while on release. If that's not an option, I'd offer that as a common sense change.

"If they can't afford bail, the setting of bail is a de facto pretrial detention. The Constitution might be "impractical" sometimes, but our rights are still worth preserving."

There is no pre-trial detention in the NYC system. The closest thing to it is the prosecutor asking for remand, and the judge granting it. It is only used in murder cases.

"If they're a danger to society, they shouldn't be let out of pretrial detention because they have financial means. But that requires the prosecution to sufficiently prove that they are a danger to society in order to merit pretrial detention."

Again, there is no pre-trial detention. There is nothing keeping a violent criminal, or career criminal, inside and way from society other than the imposition of bail.

"We should not be in the habit of depriving people of liberty because it is more convenient to the prosecution. There are plenty of reasons why a guilty person might want to plead. And as our issues with bail have shown us, there are plenty of reasons why innocent people plead guilty when you use unaffordable bail to keep them in jail. New York's system isn't perfect. But they're on the right path."

It is not about convenience, rather it is about the nature of people, especially criminals, to not want to accept responsibility for their actions. An individual who commits a crime against another or society is inherently selfish, and thus is seeking to gain by breaking the established rules. This person, especially while they remain at liberty, will not want to accept responsibility. If they were already incarcerated, it would be easier for them to accept responsibility, because they are already receiving their punishment.

"Okay, this is compelling. How have the changes in the law eliminated arguments for prosecutors to keep people in pretrial detention? That's something that might be worth retooling. But it shouldn't be through the prosecutor and court setting bail a defendant can't afford. It should be through the prosecutor satisfying the burden of proof as to why pretrial detention is necessary. It seems to me that there should be a mechanism to impose pretrial detention (at minimum for a period of time) on an accused who keeps committing crimes while on release. If that's not an option, I'd offer that as a common sense change."

Again, no pre-trial detention. The law has changed that prosecutors can ask for bail only on "qualified offenses" which is only the most violent of felonies. All other offenses, you must be automatically released. I agree there should be a mechanism, but there isn't. Prosecutors don't use bail as a form of pre-trial detention, but it often works in that manner. Prosecutors are looking to resolve cases, either by plea or trial as quickly as possible, to focus on other more serious matters, or continue investigations of other matters. The bail reform law (and we haven't even touched on the discovery reform law) now make the prosecutor's job worse, filled with paper pushing and document hunting that don't make it as great as the job should be.

[Anonymous User]

Same Anon-I don't think you understand how impractical that line of thinking is.

Individuals should have bail set on them for numerous reasons, one to ensure that they return to court.

If they can't afford bail, the setting of bail is a de facto pretrial detention. The Constitution might be "impractical" sometimes, but our rights are still worth preserving.

Another being that they are a danger to society for numerous reasons (type of crime, frequency of crime etc).

If they're a danger to society, they shouldn't be let out of pretrial detention because they have financial means. But that requires the prosecution to sufficiently prove that they are a danger to society in order to merit pretrial detention.

Statistics show that wealthy individuals often do not commit the types of violent crime that we as a society have agreed is abhorrent, in contrast to individuals who are lower or even sometimes middle class.

This isn't a rational argument for tying whether or not you get out of jail to wealth. Wealthy people who are having to pay bond are accused of committing a crime too. Locking up poor people because they're statistically more likely to commit "abhorrent" violent crimes isn't a sufficient justification for depriving them of liberty.

It is the need to remove violent individuals by placing people in pre-trial detention (who also happen to be lower class or poor) is in the interest of society. If violent or repeat offenders are not put in jail, theoretically there isn't any incentive for an individual to resolve their case, and accept their guilt for the crime committed, as there is no acceptance or imposition of punishment for the wrong they have committed.

Good. Place them in pretrial detention then. But that entails the prosecution proving certain things. Using bail as an end run around having to satisfy your burden of proof for pretrial detention is unacceptable, and in my mind, unconstitutional.

By having individuals at liberty, it creates a disincentive for guilty criminals to plead guilty, because they do not want to accept responsibility and relinquish their liberty. The government must then prove its case against this individual, which is resource intensive: it requires prosecutors, paralegals, defense counsel, the defendant, judges, court clerks, stenographers, witnesses, law enforcement, civilian jurors, to all be present, prepared, engaged and working to a just outcome. To do this with every case that occurs in NYC would cause a collapse (or in many counties currently, cause delays) in the judicial system, unless you inject significant resources to expand the number of prosecutors, judges, defense counsel, court staff, court buildings etc.

We should not be in the habit of depriving people of liberty because it is more convenient to the prosecution. There are plenty of reasons why a guilty person might want to plead. And as our issues with bail have shown us, there are plenty of reasons why innocent people plead guilty when you use unaffordable bail to keep them in jail. New York's system isn't perfect. But they're on the right path.

In sum, the laws have removed the arguments/laws for prosecutors, and the law for judges, to keep people in pre-trial detention in NYC. This has allowed for known criminals to commit multiple crimes, while pending charges, with the almost certainty of knowing they will remain free if arrested. It creates a disincentive to plead guilty, and creates an incentive for criminals to continue criminal conduct, and delay their cases as long as possible.

Okay, this is compelling. How have the changes in the law eliminated arguments for prosecutors to keep people in pretrial detention? That's something that might be worth retooling. But it shouldn't be through the prosecutor and court setting bail a defendant can't afford. It should be through the prosecutor satisfying the burden of proof as to why pretrial detention is necessary. It seems to me that there should be a mechanism to impose pretrial detention (at minimum for a period of time) on an accused who keeps committing crimes while on release. If that's not an option, I'd offer that as a common sense change.

"If they can't afford bail, the setting of bail is a de facto pretrial detention. The Constitution might be "impractical" sometimes, but our rights are still worth preserving."

There is no pre-trial detention in the NYC system. The closest thing to it is the prosecutor asking for remand, and the judge granting it. It is only used in murder cases.

"If they're a danger to society, they shouldn't be let out of pretrial detention because they have financial means. But that requires the prosecution to sufficiently prove that they are a danger to society in order to merit pretrial detention."

Again, there is no pre-trial detention. There is nothing keeping a violent criminal, or career criminal, inside and way from society other than the imposition of bail.

"We should not be in the habit of depriving people of liberty because it is more convenient to the prosecution. There are plenty of reasons why a guilty person might want to plead. And as our issues with bail have shown us, there are plenty of reasons why innocent people plead guilty when you use unaffordable bail to keep them in jail. New York's system isn't perfect. But they're on the right path."

It is not about convenience, rather it is about the nature of people, especially criminals, to not want to accept responsibility for their actions. An individual who commits a crime against another or society is inherently selfish, and thus is seeking to gain by breaking the established rules. This person, especially while they remain at liberty, will not want to accept responsibility. If they were already incarcerated, it would be easier for them to accept responsibility, because they are already receiving their punishment.

"Okay, this is compelling. How have the changes in the law eliminated arguments for prosecutors to keep people in pretrial detention? That's something that might be worth retooling. But it shouldn't be through the prosecutor and court setting bail a defendant can't afford. It should be through the prosecutor satisfying the burden of proof as to why pretrial detention is necessary. It seems to me that there should be a mechanism to impose pretrial detention (at minimum for a period of time) on an accused who keeps committing crimes while on release. If that's not an option, I'd offer that as a common sense change."

Again, no pre-trial detention. The law has changed that prosecutors can ask for bail only on "qualified offenses" which is only the most violent of felonies. All other offenses, you must be automatically released. I agree there should be a mechanism, but there isn't. Prosecutors don't use bail as a form of pre-trial detention, but it often works in that manner. Prosecutors are looking to resolve cases, either by plea or trial as quickly as possible, to focus on other more serious matters, or continue investigations of other matters. The bail reform law (and we haven't even touched on the discovery reform law) now make the prosecutor's job worse, filled with paper pushing and document hunting that don't make it as great as the job should be.

[nixy]

I don’t understand the issue with discovery reform. Why shouldn’t defendants have that discovery in a timely fashion? Just because it takes more time than it used to isn’t a reason defendants shouldn’t get it.

Also, I’m confused because Google tells me that even before reform of bail reform, pretrial detention is permitted in all violent felonies (except for a couple of sections of burglary/robbery statutes) and all Class A felonies (except a drug felonies that don’t involve operating as a major trafficker). They also apparently expanded this last summer in a backlash against the reforms. According to one source about the effect of the reforms, 84% of cases are ineligible for bail.

[Anonymous User]

I don’t understand the issue with discovery reform. Why shouldn’t defendants have that discovery in a timely fashion? Just because it takes more time than it used to isn’t a reason defendants shouldn’t get it.

Also, I’m confused because Google tells me that even before reform of bail reform, pretrial detention is permitted in all violent felonies (except for a couple of sections of burglary/robbery statutes) and all Class A felonies (except a drug felonies that don’t involve operating as a major trafficker). They also apparently expanded this last summer in a backlash against the reforms. According to one source about the effect of the reforms, 84% of cases are ineligible for bail.

The issue with discovery reform is not only the time constraints 20 days if someone is incarcerated, I think 35 if they are not. Yes defendants should get discovery in a timely manner (ie before trial) but most cases in NYC are not tried until a year after arrest (due to court congestion), so tying whether a case should be dismissed or not on when a defendant obtains discovery is just an administrative weapon the defense bar is now wields to try and dismiss cases.

The law also expanded what qualifies as discovery (anything related to the case), requires the prosecution to disclose the names and contact information of witnesses (that are already reluctant to testify), requires the prosecution to obtain all law enforcement paperwork made (sometimes many officers respond to a scene, and if you don’t have everyone’s paperwork and turn it over in the allotted time the court may declare that you were never ready to proceed on a case, and dismiss the matter).

It also allows defendants to visit the location of the alleged crime, even if someone lives there (think of a burglary in your home, in which a defendant would be automatic released with no bail, and the defendant was allowed to come back and walk through your apartment to assist with his case).

“Pre-trial” detention is not a thing you request. It is simply describing someone who is currently detained due to the bail imposed, or a remand request. The new bail law only allows for a certain set of crimes to have bail set on them, and thus any form of pre-trial detention. All other crimes bail cannot be set, despite how many times someone commits the same crime over and over.

[lavarman84]

It is not about convenience, rather it is about the nature of people, especially criminals, to not want to accept responsibility for their actions. An individual who commits a crime against another or society is inherently selfish, and thus is seeking to gain by breaking the established rules. This person, especially while they remain at liberty, will not want to accept responsibility. If they were already incarcerated, it would be easier for them to accept responsibility, because they are already receiving their punishment.

I obviously disagree with pretrial detention not being more widely available (remand = pretrial detention, as I am using the term). But your last sentence demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. Legally speaking, the initial decision to detain somebody prior to trial (whether done via unaffordable bail or remand/pretrial detention) is not permissible for the purpose of punishment. A criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

[nixy]

The issue with discovery reform is not only the time constraints 20 days if someone is incarcerated, I think 35 if they are not. Yes defendants should get discovery in a timely manner (ie before trial) but most cases in NYC are not tried until a year after arrest (due to court congestion), so tying whether a case should be dismissed or not on when a defendant obtains discovery is just an administrative weapon the defense bar is now wields to try and dismiss cases.

The law also expanded what qualifies as discovery (anything related to the case), requires the prosecution to disclose the names and contact information of witnesses (that are already reluctant to testify), requires the prosecution to obtain all law enforcement paperwork made (sometimes many officers respond to a scene, and if you don’t have everyone’s paperwork and turn it over in the allotted time the court may declare that you were never ready to proceed on a case, and dismiss the matter).

It also allows defendants to visit the location of the alleged crime, even if someone lives there (think of a burglary in your home, in which a defendant would be automatic released with no bail, and the defendant was allowed to come back and walk through your apartment to assist with his case).

“Pre-trial” detention is not a thing you request. It is simply describing someone who is currently detained due to the bail imposed, or a remand request. The new bail law only allows for a certain set of crimes to have bail set on them, and thus any form of pre-trial detention. All other crimes bail cannot be set, despite how many times someone commits the same crime over and over.

So what's the difference between pretrial detention and remand? And yes, I get that only a certain of crimes can have bail set, but my point was you were declaiming how terrible it is that violent criminals don't get bail set, when violent felonies are crimes that still allow bail to be set.

I'm still not sure that not wanting to have hand over stuff you didn't used to have to hand over, on a different schedule than you want to turn it over, is a good basis for not having to turn it over on that schedule.

[Anonymous User]

It is not about convenience, rather it is about the nature of people, especially criminals, to not want to accept responsibility for their actions. An individual who commits a crime against another or society is inherently selfish, and thus is seeking to gain by breaking the established rules. This person, especially while they remain at liberty, will not want to accept responsibility. If they were already incarcerated, it would be easier for them to accept responsibility, because they are already receiving their punishment.

I obviously disagree with pretrial detention not being more widely available (remand = pretrial detention, as I am using the term). But your last sentence demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. Legally speaking, the initial decision to detain somebody prior to trial (whether done via unaffordable bail or remand/pretrial detention) is not permissible for the purpose of punishment. A criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Pre-trial detention (as you are using the term) is not widely available in practice. As I stated in my previous post it is only used in accusations of murder. That is the only matter judges will grant it.

As to your last sentence, what I am saying is that individuals are less likely to plead guilty (as compared to before) because they have not had their "come to Jesus" moment by being incarcerated, and realizing the error of their ways and accepting responsibility. In addition, having individuals at liberty gives them an added incentive to delay their cases (either by not directly proceeding to trial, absconding, witness intimidation) which denies justice.

[lavarman84]

It is not about convenience, rather it is about the nature of people, especially criminals, to not want to accept responsibility for their actions. An individual who commits a crime against another or society is inherently selfish, and thus is seeking to gain by breaking the established rules. This person, especially while they remain at liberty, will not want to accept responsibility. If they were already incarcerated, it would be easier for them to accept responsibility, because they are already receiving their punishment.

I obviously disagree with pretrial detention not being more widely available (remand = pretrial detention, as I am using the term). But your last sentence demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. Legally speaking, the initial decision to detain somebody prior to trial (whether done via unaffordable bail or remand/pretrial detention) is not permissible for the purpose of punishment. A criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Pre-trial detention (as you are using the term) is not widely available in practice. As I stated in my previous post it is only used in accusations of murder. That is the only matter judges will grant it.

As to your last sentence, what I am saying is that individuals are less likely to plead guilty (as compared to before) because they have not had their "come to Jesus" moment by being incarcerated, and realizing the error of their ways and accepting responsibility. In addition, having individuals at liberty gives them an added incentive to delay their cases (either by not directly proceeding to trial, absconding, witness intimidation) which denies justice.

Okay, bring them to trial and convict them. It's their right not to plead guilty.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone with knowledge of the salary scale in Brooklyn or Manhattan chime in as to what a lateral (6-8 yrs experience) ADA would be making?

[Anonymous User]

The issue with discovery reform is not only the time constraints 20 days if someone is incarcerated, I think 35 if they are not. Yes defendants should get discovery in a timely manner (ie before trial) but most cases in NYC are not tried until a year after arrest (due to court congestion), so tying whether a case should be dismissed or not on when a defendant obtains discovery is just an administrative weapon the defense bar is now wields to try and dismiss cases.

The law also expanded what qualifies as discovery (anything related to the case), requires the prosecution to disclose the names and contact information of witnesses (that are already reluctant to testify), requires the prosecution to obtain all law enforcement paperwork made (sometimes many officers respond to a scene, and if you don’t have everyone’s paperwork and turn it over in the allotted time the court may declare that you were never ready to proceed on a case, and dismiss the matter).

It also allows defendants to visit the location of the alleged crime, even if someone lives there (think of a burglary in your home, in which a defendant would be automatic released with no bail, and the defendant was allowed to come back and walk through your apartment to assist with his case).

“Pre-trial” detention is not a thing you request. It is simply describing someone who is currently detained due to the bail imposed, or a remand request. The new bail law only allows for a certain set of crimes to have bail set on them, and thus any form of pre-trial detention. All other crimes bail cannot be set, despite how many times someone commits the same crime over and over.

So what's the difference between pretrial detention and remand? And yes, I get that only a certain of crimes can have bail set, but my point was you were declaiming how terrible it is that violent criminals don't get bail set, when violent felonies are crimes that still allow bail to be set.

I'm still not sure that not wanting to have hand over stuff you didn't used to have to hand over, on a different schedule than you want to turn it over, is a good basis for not having to turn it over on that schedule.

The difference is that in practice, remand is only used in murder. That's it. No other crimes. And while bail can be set on violent felonies, bail is being placed less and less on these defendants due to judges trying to extend the intent of the reforms to these matters. In addition, certain crimes, like the man or woman who committed an unarmed burglary in your house, that individual cannot have bail set on them, even if they broke into every house on your street for the past week.

As to your comment on discovery (which you glossed over all the other newly imposed factors), my comment was that it now requires prosecutors to be paper pushers and document seekers (especially from NYPD), by trying to provide discovery (and what even goes beyond the limits of discovery, such as Rosario material) on an unrealistic and arbitrary deadline, or else risk facing dismissal of a case or potential suppression of evidence. I don't see how you don't understand what an administrative burden this is, in comparison to the benefits of defendants in possession of discovery.

[Anonymous User]

It is not about convenience, rather it is about the nature of people, especially criminals, to not want to accept responsibility for their actions. An individual who commits a crime against another or society is inherently selfish, and thus is seeking to gain by breaking the established rules. This person, especially while they remain at liberty, will not want to accept responsibility. If they were already incarcerated, it would be easier for them to accept responsibility, because they are already receiving their punishment.

I obviously disagree with pretrial detention not being more widely available (remand = pretrial detention, as I am using the term). But your last sentence demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. Legally speaking, the initial decision to detain somebody prior to trial (whether done via unaffordable bail or remand/pretrial detention) is not permissible for the purpose of punishment. A criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Pre-trial detention (as you are using the term) is not widely available in practice. As I stated in my previous post it is only used in accusations of murder. That is the only matter judges will grant it.

As to your last sentence, what I am saying is that individuals are less likely to plead guilty (as compared to before) because they have not had their "come to Jesus" moment by being incarcerated, and realizing the error of their ways and accepting responsibility. In addition, having individuals at liberty gives them an added incentive to delay their cases (either by not directly proceeding to trial, absconding, witness intimidation) which denies justice.

Okay, bring them to trial and convict them. It's their right not to plead guilty.

Yes that is what you learned in first year criminal law. You avoid practicality. Your last statement avoids the issue that these individuals are now free to continue additional crimes, while being allowed to go free crime after crime. Additionally, it strains the resources of all parties (as I previously mentioned). Would you also be willing to increase the funding of prosecutors offices, NYPD, Courts, and public defenders to accommodate for these increases in resources?

[Anonymous User]

Can someone with knowledge of the salary scale in Brooklyn or Manhattan chime in as to what a lateral (6-8 yrs experience) ADA would be making?

You can deduce it with a little digging. Find a 6th or 7th year on Linkedin.
Then go here and enter their name to look up their salary: https://www.seethroughny.net/payrolls/city-of-new-york

Note: the latest are FY 2020 salaries. There may have been an increase after that information was published for FY 2021.

[nixy]

The difference is that in practice, remand is only used in murder. That's it. No other crimes. And while bail can be set on violent felonies, bail is being placed less and less on these defendants due to judges trying to extend the intent of the reforms to these matters. In addition, certain crimes, like the man or woman who committed an unarmed burglary in your house, that individual cannot have bail set on them, even if they broke into every house on your street for the past week.

As to your comment on discovery (which you glossed over all the other newly imposed factors), my comment was that it now requires prosecutors to be paper pushers and document seekers (especially from NYPD), by trying to provide discovery (and what even goes beyond the limits of discovery, such as Rosario material) on an unrealistic and arbitrary deadline, or else risk facing dismissal of a case or potential suppression of evidence. I don't see how you don't understand what an administrative burden this is, in comparison to the benefits of defendants in possession of discovery.

My point is that this making the prosecution’s job harder doesn’t have anything to do with whether it’s the right or wrong thing to do. Defendants’ rights aren’t contingent on not being a burden on prosecutors. I feel pretty confident that defendants (and reformers) consider the benefits to the defendants of getting discovery earlier to be pretty darn significant. If the discovery shows fatal issues with a police stop, for instance, wouldn’t a defendant want to know that in 30-45 days rather than on the eve of trial a year later? Wouldn’t you as the prosecutor rather know the fatal flaws in your evidence earlier rather than later? And if you were going to have to produce this stuff before trial anyway, why does this transform the job to paper pushing when it’s just changing the timeline for production?

I get entirely that the change has made the job less palatable *to you*, which is fair, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad change.