Public Defenders Blast Ruling Allowing In-Person New York City Criminal Court Appearances
The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. of the Southern District of New York, denied a preliminary injunction to halt the courts' reopening until the Office of Court Administration implemented a new plan that made accommodations for medically at-risk staff and defendants, including video and telephonic hearings.
July 29, 2020 at 02:18 PM
4 minute read
A group of New York City public defender organizations are opposing a federal judge's ruling Tuesday to allow state courts to reopen for in-person proceedings, saying the decision put their clients at "enormous risk" during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. of the Southern District of New York, denied a preliminary injunction to halt the courts' reopening until the Office of Court Administration implemented a new plan that made accommodations for medically at-risk staff and defendants, including video and telephonic hearings.
Carter, however, said the request amounted to an impermissible and "ongoing federal audit of state criminal proceedings" that would require "significant intrusion" into the courts' functions.
"This court does not, and indeed cannot, dictate if, when, and how state criminal courts reopen or schedule in-person appearances. To do so would violate fundamental principles of comity and federalism, and would result in federal supervision of state procedures and proceedings," Carter wrote in a 16-page opinion.
"Without adjudicating the merits of plaintiffs' claims, the court concludes that pursuant to Supreme Court and Second Circuit case law, it must abstain from deciding this action," he said.
The public defender groups, which included Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn Defender Services, the Bronx Defenders, New York County Defender Services, Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem and Queens Defenders, said in a statement that the decision would particularly impact low-income clients of color and people with disabilities.
"The decision by the Southern District of New York to allow this unlawful plan to continue violates our clients' rights and exposes the public to unnecessary risk," the statement said. "We will explore the options available to prevent further harm."
"We are disappointed that the Southern District of New York allowed OCA to continue down this reckless road," the groups said.
A spokesman did not respond to inquiries Wednesday on possible plans to appeal the ruling or to seek a resolution outside of the litigation.
The organizations had said they were surprised by Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks' July 9 announcement that some in-person proceedings would resume in the city as the court system entered Phase Three of its reopening plan. The lawsuit, filed July 14 in Manhattan federal court, alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The OCA and Marks said the plan was necessary to jump-start court cases that were abruptly paused by the pandemic in mid-March. According to the courts, the disruption caused a backlog of 39,000 cases and 12,000 unindicted felonies, a number that had increased 42% in just four and a half months.
In his ruling, Carter said an order halting the courts' reopening would require an order banning state court judges from scheduling in-person appearances, as well as ongoing supervision of a new policy, which would "squarely" impact state criminal proceedings.
"This relief would then need to be supervised and enforced by this court. This degree of intrusion constitutes an impermissible, 'ongoing federal audit of state criminal proceedings,'" he said.
An OCA spokesman said Thursday that the office was "pleased with Judge Carter's decision allowing us to continue our deliberate, measured and careful resumption of in-person appearances."
"To date, we have had more than 800 in-person appearances in New York City Criminal Court alone, furthering our goal of the continued resumption of operations reflecting a criminal justice system that is safe, secure and engenders confidence for all users," he said.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 2OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 34th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 4Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
- 5How the Trump II Administration Can Combat Antisemitism
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250