Justice Richard Weinberg
Attorney Weissman was indictment on criminal possession of a controlled substance and forged instrument charges. She sought to participate in a Judicial Intervention Program under Criminal Procedure Law Article 216 without first entering a guilty plea. Prosecutors argued Weissman was statutorily ineligible due to the inclusion of a conspiracy charge in the indictment. The court disagreed stating that permitting prosecutors to disqualify a person merely by including a non-qualifying charge in an indictment undermined the legislative intent to place discretion and control of diversion in the court’s hands, rather than the prosecutors’. Thus, the court found Weissman was charged with both qualifying and non-qualifying offenses, but was not charged with any disqualifying offenses. Accordingly, it ruled Weissman was a statutorily eligible candidate for diversion. Further, the court found the loss of Weissman’s license and livelihood were severe collateral consequences which would flow from the requirement of a guilty plea, concluding exceptional circumstances existed to permit Weissman to enter the diversion program without first entering a guilty plea. Yet, it required her to waive her speedy trial rights while in the program.