During the annual winter conference of the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York held on January 30, 2025, District Attorney Michael McMahon of Staten Island expressed his stance on the state’s discovery laws. In a formal letter addressed to Governor Kathy Hochul, Mayor Eric Adams, and multiple city and state dignitaries, McMahon voiced support for the reformation of these laws. Backing him in this pursuit directed towards law reformation are the three Community Boards within Staten Island and a myriad of the borough’s local organizations, as mentioned in his letter.
The primary focus of McMahon’s argument aligns with the proposed changes in the laws which Governor Hochul presented. McMahon, in his communication, conceded that the existing discovery statute installed in 2019 was designed with good intentions. Yet, his argument is that it has unintentionally led to the dismissal of numerous cases across the state due to legal technicalities and numerous loopholes, which has then subsequently contributed to diminished morale amongst district attorney offices around New York.
The views expressed by McMahon go beyond an individual perspective. The intensity of these sentiments ripples through the borough’s locally mobilized organizations, manifesting in stark statements. Displayed unity reaches a broader sequence as McMahon collaborates with 61 out of the 62 elected district attorneys in New York who are supporting this proposal.
Voting for the suggested modifications to the law took place at the beginning of the year, supervised by the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York. The proposal that Governor Hochul put forth is seen as serving the foundational objective of discovery reform. This includes ensuring swift, comprehensive disclosure to defense parties within criminal proceedings, thereby equipping them with all the necessary details to counter argue their cases.
Hochul’s proposal aims to eradicate the tendency of playing strategic games within the legal system and the potential for a multitude of technical dismissals that weigh heavily on the criminal justice milieu. The New York discovery reform law that took effect in 2020 indeed brought significant alterations in pushing the fairness of criminal proceedings. However, McMahon emphasises that this reform caused unintended ramifications.
One of the main elements of Governor Hochul’s proposal is the adjustment of rules, transitioning from mandating prosecutors to present all ‘related’ corroboration in cases to submitting only ‘relevant’ evidence. McMahon attributes the escalating cycle of recidivism in New York to the present discovery statutes.
As per McMahon, the current discovery rules unfortunately provide an escape route for many offenders from legal accountability. McMahon’s letter underlines his assertion, ‘Regretfully, New York’s existing discovery laws pave the way for numerous culprits of crime to evade liability for their deeds in the courtroom.’
McMahon’s standpoint reveals an unsettling impact of the present statutes on New Yorkers’ belief in the criminal justice system. He divulges that it’s taking a toll as victims and survivors are denied justice. Furthermore, orders of protection are being discontinued and dangerous criminals are walking free without facing any repercussions for their harmful criminal conduct.
Governor Hochul’s proposed changes come across as a smart and pragmatic solution, according to McMahon, and aim to rectify these shortcomings. McMahon’s letter outlines that these changes would reinstitute attribution in the criminal justice framework while upholding the state’s legacy of most transparent discovery laws nationwide.
Referencing the absence of consequence for ill-intentioned behavior as a factor contributing towards the revolving door of reoffending, McMahon firmly supports the proposed changes. He perceives this adjustment to the discovery law as a much-needed transformation that can potentially plug the loopholes that currently exist.
In the words of McMahon, Governor Hochul’s proposal is a balancing act. It maintains a firm stand on containing crime, while at the same time, it doesn’t compromise on the transparency of the state’s discovery procedures, which have been a cornerstone of the state’s judicial system.
This ongoing debate about the revised discovery law is intertwined with the larger aspiration for restoring New Yorkers’ faith in the criminal justice system. McMahon’s plea for the grassroots and elected attorney’s support for the proposal is a testament to this endeavor.
In conclusion, McMahon’s emphasis on ‘restoring accountability’ within the criminal justice mechanism highlights the bigger goal of this law reformation, leading towards a more equitable and transparent system that assures every citizen of their right to justice.