August 18, 2025 • 14 mins
Aug. 18, 2025 - Rensselaer County District Attorney Mary Pat Donnelly, a Democrat, discusses changes to New York's evidence disclosure laws that took effect this summer at the urging of local prosecutors and Gov. Kathy Hochul.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
This summer. Changes are taking effect to the state's evidence
disclosure laws, which were updated as part of the budget
and have been a major part of the criminal justice
conversation in New York since being dramatically overhauled six years
ago as part of an effort to increase criminal defendant's
access to meaningful evidence against them. In a timely manner,
to discuss the changes that took effect on August seventh,
were joined in the Capitol press Room studio by Wrestler
(00:26):
County District Attorney Mary pat Donnelly, a Democrat who is
also the current president of the District Attorney's Association of
the State of New York. Thanks for joining us in
the studio, District Attorney, glad to be here. So, from
your perspective, what are the practical implications of the update
to the state's discovery laws that took effect earlier this month.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Sure, as I always say, discovery can be a very
foreign concept to people who work outside of the criminal
justice system. I think the big message that people need
to understand is what this does is it allows the
judge to take a look at what the prosecutor has done,
the diligent efforts the prosecutor has made to give as
(01:06):
much information as they possibly can, and where there is
an item that is not turned over or that cannot
be recovered for whatever reason, there's an opportunity for an
explanation and then a conversation with the defense council so
that the judge can look at the circumstances and fashion
a reasonable remedy. So there's no longer a situation where
a judge is backed into a corner and says, we
(01:26):
have to dismiss this case because you were not able
to certify on time.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Yeah, that was one of the concerns from prosecutors. Is
this idea that the only option to judges was to
dismiss a case that they couldn't take into consideration different circumstances.
What ultimately emerged, though this language is demonstrably different, some
might say, than what the governor initially proposed, And clearly
the governor wanted to give judges more flexibility, but some
(01:52):
people read the final language as still tying the hands
of judges to a certain degree that while there is
this holistic view, there are limited remedies in some cases,
and there will still be a dismissal by default in
some cases. What do you think about that.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I agree that that can still happen in some cases,
and that is why you know, we're looking at this
as a step forward, not necessarily a total fix to
everything that we were concerned about.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Well, what would you like to see implementation look like,
particularly as it pertains to judges and their awareness of
their responsibilities moving forward, because that has been another point
of contention since not just the update to the discovery laws,
but the update to the pre trial detention laws more broadly,
that judges maybe aren't necessarily as aware of what they're
(02:41):
able to do as they might think they are able
to do.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Sure, well, it's certainly my hope that there will be
training with respect to these new changes for our OCA judges.
There's always an issue with our lower courts upstate, which
again this is going to something you have to recognize
about New York State is it's so diverse. So I'm
from Renser count it's a small county. A lot of
our judges from our small municipalities may not even be attorneys.
So that is definitely a concern because just because you
(03:07):
commit a crime and a jurisdiction where a judge is
not an attorney. It doesn't mean you don't have real
victims on the other side of that case. So I'm
hopeful that there will be training for judges so that
they can understand the different remedies that they can fashion.
But again, if you harken back to what we're looking
at here, we're looking at communication, meaningful communication between defense
counsel and the district attorney to say, hey, you didn't
(03:29):
turn over that particular piece of evidence, where is it
and why? So bringing the judge into that conversation, they
can then look at the harm that it's caused a
particular case, and you can make a determination as to
whether or not the DA's efforts were made with good faith,
due diligence, and all of the things that they need
to do to hold up their end of the bargain.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Well, taking a quick side note, you pointed out that
not all judges are actually attorneys, something that might surprise
a lot of listeners, but particularly I think of town
justices as not being attorneys. Is it the case that
those are the types of officials who are weighing in
on some of these discovery matters, because I always think
of it more as like a county court decision or
(04:12):
higher up the threshold.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Well, obviously the county court judges are going to be
the ones handling the felony cases. But if you look
at a simple misdemeanor case like a DWI for example,
that's going to be adjudicated in a lower court, and
you can be driving through the smallest town in New
York State when you get that DWI charge.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
So another part of the conversation over changing the discovery
law was this idea of what type of material needs
to be disclosed in that timely fashion. Does it need
to be everything under the sun, or does it need
to be related to a case? Does it need to
be relevant to the case. It's my understanding that you
didn't necessarily get the relevant language that maybe the governor
(04:52):
was looking for and prosecutors were looking for, and it's
going to stick with related or are there other changes
to the types of that you think are going to
have an impact.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Well, there was a compromise. So in delineating the different
categories of what needs to be turned over, some stuck
with the related and some became relevant.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Okay, where do you see that potentially having a meaningful difference?
Where does that relevant statute can apply in a significant way.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Well, a lot of times we were dealing with duplicatus evidence,
a situation where you have a report on a particular
home that was made by a law enforcement officer in
proximity to the crime, but it had absolutely nothing to
do with this particular crime or particular defendant. And if
that was not turned over because somebody actually surmised that
it wasn't important, that won't be held against the case.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
And in terms of the implementation of this, how much
of it is going to be up to the courts
for their interpretation of the new statue.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Well, that's always how it goes when there's a new
when there's new legislation, the courts are the ones who
make the ultimate decision. I do think that there's been
a real crystalism here, and that was the problem with
the statute before is there was so many vagaries in
there that resulted in so much litigation. So I think
that the clarifications in this statute are going to be welcome.
And I don't think that Listen, there's still going to
(06:11):
be things that need to be debated. Is this relevant,
is this related? Should I have turned this over? But
I think the categories are sharpening, and I think the
understanding by all the lawyers involved is going to be
a little bit better. And again, it aims to enhance
the communication. There's no longer going to be a datcha,
hey you didn't turn this over too late. It will
be why didn't you turn this over? Can you get it?
(06:33):
Let's bring the judge in and discuss what I'm looking for,
why I want it, and then we can have a remedy.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
Well as it pertains to ambiguity or gray areas that
need to be considered by a judge. Are these questions
that you think are going to be examined in a
case by case basis, or is there the potential for, say,
the Court of Appeals to weigh in and set some
broader precedents to help define terms relevant and related and
anything else that might be up for debate.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Sure, I mean definitely the higher courts are going to
weigh in. But it is my hope that with this
more specific language that we're going to be able to
have a more fruitful conversation between the DA and the
Defense Council when there is something that's missing.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Well, before we move on, let me reintroduce you for
listeners just joining us. This is the Capital press Room,
and we're speaking with Rensselaer County District Attorney Mary Patt Donnelly,
who was also the current president of the District Attorney's
Association of the State of New York. Another element to
this conversation has been this idea that criminal defendants or
their attorneys more specifically, can basically weigh out the clock
(07:37):
to raise certain objections about what evidence is being disclosed
and whether they've gotten everything there entitled to, and the
cometimes leaves the prosecutors left scrambling because of there's not
enough time to respond. Is that something that got addressed
in the final law.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
I believe that it's been addressed. Is it going to
solve the problem completely? Remains to be seen. I can
tell you for certain that was absolutely happening frequently. We
were having a situation where we're turning over volumes and
volumes of information as required by the statute. Defense counsel
is not looking at that information until they're preparing for
trial in the days before we're actually selecting a jury,
(08:17):
and it's at that time they're making an objection and
it's too late. It's just too late. For anything to happen.
So that's when you were seeing those horrific dismissals based
upon the ever dreaded legal technicality. So the hope now
is that when they have thirty five days, they have
to examine that information in timely fashion so that they
can come back to us and say, this is what's
(08:38):
missing and we can make a good faith effort to
turn it over.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Is there reason to believe that, say, public defenders in particular,
have enough time that that thirty five days is reasonable
for them to look through whatever they need to look
through because they probably have a lot of cases. They're
not necessarily as well resourced as the prosecutors. So is
that reasonable? You gave me a look. But I will
point out that under this administration there has been record
(09:04):
levels of investment in prosecutorial offices. Maybe it's still short
of what you'd like, but I think if anyone wants
to be on the side of resources, it's probably going
to be the prosecutors and not the public defenders.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
We certainly have seen a drastic increase in resources. Very
grateful to the state government for doing that. I do believe,
and don't hold me to it. My public defenders in
Rensterer County are very well resourced, and I believe in
excess of what I'm receiving. That said, I have a
lot more cases than a public defender does. An Ada
(09:36):
has a lot more cases than an individual public defender
in Renser County. So if I have time to collect
all of that information, evaluate all of that information appropriately,
redact the information, and turn it over, I'm going to
say they have time to examine it and make sure
that they have everything they are entitled to well.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
Stinking with that idea of the prosecutors and their ability
to get information, one of the things that we here,
at least at a New York city, is this idea
that the New York Police Department isn't necessarily getting information
to prosecutors in a timely or meaningful fashion. Is that
something that is a problem outside of the Five Boroughs
as well? Is it something that you experienced in Wrestler County.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
It's absolutely a problem in our county and in all
of the counties where I have spoken with the das
about this specific issue, and more so upstate. We have
multiple law enforcement agencies and they all function differently. So
this is a problem I called attention to back in
twenty nineteen, there was no opportunity to train our law
enforcement and to make them fully understand what we needed,
(10:35):
and not only make them understand, but give them the
infrastructure resources to get us what we need. Some of
our busiest police departments don't have dedicated staff still, they
don't have funded people whose function it is to synthesize
and transfer that body camera. So it's definitely an issue,
and I'm certain it's an issue around the state.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
So what is the right response to that problem. Is
this something about providing more time, Is this about resources,
Is it about changing the process and ensuring that there
is dedicated staff, or maybe it's more complicated than just
a broad state response.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
It's definitely a very complicated response. Again, I go back
to that diversity around New York State. Every county is
so different. Every police agency within a county is very,
very different. I have part time police agencies in my
county versus an urban police agency in Troy, So they're
all so very different. So I don't know that there's
one answer, but I know that the concessions we've been
(11:34):
given with these changes to the law are going to
help us. By us an opportunity to confer with our
police agencies when something's missing, and to do a better
job of making sure we have absolutely everything that we're
required to turn over well.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Finally, moving forward, how do you want to judge the
success of the adopted language that took effect on August seventh?
What does success look like.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Less dismissals around the state. I want to see less
dismissals based upon prosecutors' inability to certify in a timely fashion.
Thirty thirty was a totally different animal in twenty nineteen.
Now thirty thirty is tied to those certifies.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Can you explain with thirty to thirty means.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
That's your statutory right to a speedy trial. Before the
changes came down in twenty twenty, a prosecutor simply had
to represent that they were ready for trial. Now we
actually have to show that by showing that we have
given all this information to the defense and they've had
an opportunity to look at it so that we can
go forward on the evidence. Success with these changes looks
(12:36):
like less dismissals. That is what brought us here. The
governor made a statement the other day that there were
ten thousand dismissals based upon thirty thirty back before these
changes came down, and there were fifty thousand over the
last several years. So I'm not dumb one to analyze
those numbers, but clearly every DA around the state is
saying we've seen drastic dismissals as a result of being
(12:59):
unable to apply with the Discovery Statute Article two forty five.
So my hope is that these changes are going to
reduce those numbers because that's justice for real victims, and
that's what was happening. There were real rape victims being
told I'm sorry, your case is dismissed. There were real
assault victims, real domestic violence victims. So that's what I'm
(13:19):
measuring success, and it only remains to be seen. I mean,
there are certainly people who feel this hasn't gone far enough,
but I'm of the mindset that this is going to
be helpful.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
And is it dismissals overall that you'll be watching for,
or is it dismissals as say a percentage of cases
brought because there's a possibility that maybe you'll just see
less criminal charges and therefore you see less dismissals.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Sure, and that's the issue with data. You have to
make sure you're comparing apples to apples, and certainly that's
what we're going to be looking at. We're going to
be looking at specifically those cases that could have been
or would have been dismissed prior that. Now a judge
has an opportunity to fashion a different remedy.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Well, we've been speaking with Winsler County District Attorney Mary
pat Donnelly. She is a Democrat who is the current
President of the District Attorney's Association of the State of
New York. District Attorney Donally, thanks so much for visiting us,
Thanks for having me, and for more Capital Pressroom content,
(14:19):
visit Capitol Pressroom dot org or wherever you download your
favorite podcasts.
This summer. Changes are taking effect to the state's evidence
disclosure laws, which were updated as part of the budget
and have been a major part of the criminal justice
conversation in New York since being dramatically overhauled six years
ago as part of an effort to increase criminal defendant's
access to meaningful evidence against them. In a timely manner,
to discuss the changes that took effect on August seventh,
were joined in the Capitol press Room studio by Wrestler
(00:26):
County District Attorney Mary pat Donnelly, a Democrat who is
also the current president of the District Attorney's Association of
the State of New York. Thanks for joining us in
the studio, District Attorney, glad to be here. So, from
your perspective, what are the practical implications of the update
to the state's discovery laws that took effect earlier this month.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Sure, as I always say, discovery can be a very
foreign concept to people who work outside of the criminal
justice system. I think the big message that people need
to understand is what this does is it allows the
judge to take a look at what the prosecutor has done,
the diligent efforts the prosecutor has made to give as
(01:06):
much information as they possibly can, and where there is
an item that is not turned over or that cannot
be recovered for whatever reason, there's an opportunity for an
explanation and then a conversation with the defense council so
that the judge can look at the circumstances and fashion
a reasonable remedy. So there's no longer a situation where
a judge is backed into a corner and says, we
(01:26):
have to dismiss this case because you were not able
to certify on time.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Yeah, that was one of the concerns from prosecutors. Is
this idea that the only option to judges was to
dismiss a case that they couldn't take into consideration different circumstances.
What ultimately emerged, though this language is demonstrably different, some
might say, than what the governor initially proposed, And clearly
the governor wanted to give judges more flexibility, but some
(01:52):
people read the final language as still tying the hands
of judges to a certain degree that while there is
this holistic view, there are limited remedies in some cases,
and there will still be a dismissal by default in
some cases. What do you think about that.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I agree that that can still happen in some cases,
and that is why you know, we're looking at this
as a step forward, not necessarily a total fix to
everything that we were concerned about.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Well, what would you like to see implementation look like,
particularly as it pertains to judges and their awareness of
their responsibilities moving forward, because that has been another point
of contention since not just the update to the discovery laws,
but the update to the pre trial detention laws more broadly,
that judges maybe aren't necessarily as aware of what they're
(02:41):
able to do as they might think they are able
to do.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Sure, well, it's certainly my hope that there will be
training with respect to these new changes for our OCA judges.
There's always an issue with our lower courts upstate, which
again this is going to something you have to recognize
about New York State is it's so diverse. So I'm
from Renser count it's a small county. A lot of
our judges from our small municipalities may not even be attorneys.
So that is definitely a concern because just because you
(03:07):
commit a crime and a jurisdiction where a judge is
not an attorney. It doesn't mean you don't have real
victims on the other side of that case. So I'm
hopeful that there will be training for judges so that
they can understand the different remedies that they can fashion.
But again, if you harken back to what we're looking
at here, we're looking at communication, meaningful communication between defense
counsel and the district attorney to say, hey, you didn't
(03:29):
turn over that particular piece of evidence, where is it
and why? So bringing the judge into that conversation, they
can then look at the harm that it's caused a
particular case, and you can make a determination as to
whether or not the DA's efforts were made with good faith,
due diligence, and all of the things that they need
to do to hold up their end of the bargain.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Well, taking a quick side note, you pointed out that
not all judges are actually attorneys, something that might surprise
a lot of listeners, but particularly I think of town
justices as not being attorneys. Is it the case that
those are the types of officials who are weighing in
on some of these discovery matters, because I always think
of it more as like a county court decision or
(04:12):
higher up the threshold.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Well, obviously the county court judges are going to be
the ones handling the felony cases. But if you look
at a simple misdemeanor case like a DWI for example,
that's going to be adjudicated in a lower court, and
you can be driving through the smallest town in New
York State when you get that DWI charge.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
So another part of the conversation over changing the discovery
law was this idea of what type of material needs
to be disclosed in that timely fashion. Does it need
to be everything under the sun, or does it need
to be related to a case? Does it need to
be relevant to the case. It's my understanding that you
didn't necessarily get the relevant language that maybe the governor
(04:52):
was looking for and prosecutors were looking for, and it's
going to stick with related or are there other changes
to the types of that you think are going to
have an impact.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Well, there was a compromise. So in delineating the different
categories of what needs to be turned over, some stuck
with the related and some became relevant.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Okay, where do you see that potentially having a meaningful difference?
Where does that relevant statute can apply in a significant way.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Well, a lot of times we were dealing with duplicatus evidence,
a situation where you have a report on a particular
home that was made by a law enforcement officer in
proximity to the crime, but it had absolutely nothing to
do with this particular crime or particular defendant. And if
that was not turned over because somebody actually surmised that
it wasn't important, that won't be held against the case.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
And in terms of the implementation of this, how much
of it is going to be up to the courts
for their interpretation of the new statue.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Well, that's always how it goes when there's a new
when there's new legislation, the courts are the ones who
make the ultimate decision. I do think that there's been
a real crystalism here, and that was the problem with
the statute before is there was so many vagaries in
there that resulted in so much litigation. So I think
that the clarifications in this statute are going to be welcome.
And I don't think that Listen, there's still going to
(06:11):
be things that need to be debated. Is this relevant,
is this related? Should I have turned this over? But
I think the categories are sharpening, and I think the
understanding by all the lawyers involved is going to be
a little bit better. And again, it aims to enhance
the communication. There's no longer going to be a datcha,
hey you didn't turn this over too late. It will
be why didn't you turn this over? Can you get it?
(06:33):
Let's bring the judge in and discuss what I'm looking for,
why I want it, and then we can have a remedy.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
Well as it pertains to ambiguity or gray areas that
need to be considered by a judge. Are these questions
that you think are going to be examined in a
case by case basis, or is there the potential for, say,
the Court of Appeals to weigh in and set some
broader precedents to help define terms relevant and related and
anything else that might be up for debate.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Sure, I mean definitely the higher courts are going to
weigh in. But it is my hope that with this
more specific language that we're going to be able to
have a more fruitful conversation between the DA and the
Defense Council when there is something that's missing.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Well, before we move on, let me reintroduce you for
listeners just joining us. This is the Capital press Room,
and we're speaking with Rensselaer County District Attorney Mary Patt Donnelly,
who was also the current president of the District Attorney's
Association of the State of New York. Another element to
this conversation has been this idea that criminal defendants or
their attorneys more specifically, can basically weigh out the clock
(07:37):
to raise certain objections about what evidence is being disclosed
and whether they've gotten everything there entitled to, and the
cometimes leaves the prosecutors left scrambling because of there's not
enough time to respond. Is that something that got addressed
in the final law.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
I believe that it's been addressed. Is it going to
solve the problem completely? Remains to be seen. I can
tell you for certain that was absolutely happening frequently. We
were having a situation where we're turning over volumes and
volumes of information as required by the statute. Defense counsel
is not looking at that information until they're preparing for
trial in the days before we're actually selecting a jury,
(08:17):
and it's at that time they're making an objection and
it's too late. It's just too late. For anything to happen.
So that's when you were seeing those horrific dismissals based
upon the ever dreaded legal technicality. So the hope now
is that when they have thirty five days, they have
to examine that information in timely fashion so that they
can come back to us and say, this is what's
(08:38):
missing and we can make a good faith effort to
turn it over.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Is there reason to believe that, say, public defenders in particular,
have enough time that that thirty five days is reasonable
for them to look through whatever they need to look
through because they probably have a lot of cases. They're
not necessarily as well resourced as the prosecutors. So is
that reasonable? You gave me a look. But I will
point out that under this administration there has been record
(09:04):
levels of investment in prosecutorial offices. Maybe it's still short
of what you'd like, but I think if anyone wants
to be on the side of resources, it's probably going
to be the prosecutors and not the public defenders.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
We certainly have seen a drastic increase in resources. Very
grateful to the state government for doing that. I do believe,
and don't hold me to it. My public defenders in
Rensterer County are very well resourced, and I believe in
excess of what I'm receiving. That said, I have a
lot more cases than a public defender does. An Ada
(09:36):
has a lot more cases than an individual public defender
in Renser County. So if I have time to collect
all of that information, evaluate all of that information appropriately,
redact the information, and turn it over, I'm going to
say they have time to examine it and make sure
that they have everything they are entitled to well.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
Stinking with that idea of the prosecutors and their ability
to get information, one of the things that we here,
at least at a New York city, is this idea
that the New York Police Department isn't necessarily getting information
to prosecutors in a timely or meaningful fashion. Is that
something that is a problem outside of the Five Boroughs
as well? Is it something that you experienced in Wrestler County.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
It's absolutely a problem in our county and in all
of the counties where I have spoken with the das
about this specific issue, and more so upstate. We have
multiple law enforcement agencies and they all function differently. So
this is a problem I called attention to back in
twenty nineteen, there was no opportunity to train our law
enforcement and to make them fully understand what we needed,
(10:35):
and not only make them understand, but give them the
infrastructure resources to get us what we need. Some of
our busiest police departments don't have dedicated staff still, they
don't have funded people whose function it is to synthesize
and transfer that body camera. So it's definitely an issue,
and I'm certain it's an issue around the state.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
So what is the right response to that problem. Is
this something about providing more time, Is this about resources,
Is it about changing the process and ensuring that there
is dedicated staff, or maybe it's more complicated than just
a broad state response.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
It's definitely a very complicated response. Again, I go back
to that diversity around New York State. Every county is
so different. Every police agency within a county is very,
very different. I have part time police agencies in my
county versus an urban police agency in Troy, So they're
all so very different. So I don't know that there's
one answer, but I know that the concessions we've been
(11:34):
given with these changes to the law are going to
help us. By us an opportunity to confer with our
police agencies when something's missing, and to do a better
job of making sure we have absolutely everything that we're
required to turn over well.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Finally, moving forward, how do you want to judge the
success of the adopted language that took effect on August seventh?
What does success look like.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Less dismissals around the state. I want to see less
dismissals based upon prosecutors' inability to certify in a timely fashion.
Thirty thirty was a totally different animal in twenty nineteen.
Now thirty thirty is tied to those certifies.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Can you explain with thirty to thirty means.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
That's your statutory right to a speedy trial. Before the
changes came down in twenty twenty, a prosecutor simply had
to represent that they were ready for trial. Now we
actually have to show that by showing that we have
given all this information to the defense and they've had
an opportunity to look at it so that we can
go forward on the evidence. Success with these changes looks
(12:36):
like less dismissals. That is what brought us here. The
governor made a statement the other day that there were
ten thousand dismissals based upon thirty thirty back before these
changes came down, and there were fifty thousand over the
last several years. So I'm not dumb one to analyze
those numbers, but clearly every DA around the state is
saying we've seen drastic dismissals as a result of being
(12:59):
unable to apply with the Discovery Statute Article two forty five.
So my hope is that these changes are going to
reduce those numbers because that's justice for real victims, and
that's what was happening. There were real rape victims being
told I'm sorry, your case is dismissed. There were real
assault victims, real domestic violence victims. So that's what I'm
(13:19):
measuring success, and it only remains to be seen. I mean,
there are certainly people who feel this hasn't gone far enough,
but I'm of the mindset that this is going to
be helpful.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
And is it dismissals overall that you'll be watching for,
or is it dismissals as say a percentage of cases
brought because there's a possibility that maybe you'll just see
less criminal charges and therefore you see less dismissals.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Sure, and that's the issue with data. You have to
make sure you're comparing apples to apples, and certainly that's
what we're going to be looking at. We're going to
be looking at specifically those cases that could have been
or would have been dismissed prior that. Now a judge
has an opportunity to fashion a different remedy.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Well, we've been speaking with Winsler County District Attorney Mary
pat Donnelly. She is a Democrat who is the current
President of the District Attorney's Association of the State of
New York. District Attorney Donally, thanks so much for visiting us,
Thanks for having me, and for more Capital Pressroom content,
(14:19):
visit Capitol Pressroom dot org or wherever you download your
favorite podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.