What's happening
Writing a plain-English summary… Track this bill to get it by email.
Why it matters
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to judiciary
- Referred to judiciary
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
Provides an election by a defendant in criminal matters to have the case appear before a judge or justice admitted to practice law in the state
In Assembly Committee · Judiciary · Sponsor Daniel O'Donnell
Full text
The text isn't available here yet. Check nysenate.gov.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the uniform justice court act, in relation to the right of defendants in misdemeanor or felony cases to have such matter appear before a judge or justice admitted to practice law in New York
Purpose or general idea of bill
This bill would give defendants in criminal cases in town and village justice courts the right to choose to appear in front of a judge who is a lawyer.
Summary of specific provisions
Section one of the bill adds a new section 105-a to the Uniform Justice Court Act ("UJCA") entitled "Election to proceed in certain criminal actions." The new section gives a defendant who has been charged with a misdemeanor or felony, and who is appearing in a justice court, the right to proceed before a judge who is a lawyer. Thus, a defendant may "opt out" of proceeding before a non-attorney judge in a criminal case. The defendant must make such an election in writing, on a form to be prescribed by the chief administrator of the courts, within specified time frames. This legislation would create an automatic right to have a case reassigned to an attorney judge, as provided in the first sentence of subdivision (a) of new UJCA § 105-a. As a result, the current "good cause shown" standard of Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") 170.25 would no longer have to be met by a defendant seeking to proceed before a lawyer judge. The newly created "opt-out" right would only be available after arraignment and before the making of substantive motions to prevent forum shopping. Subdivision (c) of the new UJCA § 105-a requires the chief administrator of the courts to promulgate implementing rules, which must ensure timely notice to defendants of the right to elect to proceed before an attorney judge and must also ensure that when such an election is made, the case is reassigned to an attorney judge in a timely manner. It is the legislative intent that notice of the "opt out" right will be given to defendants during arraignment in two ways: instruction by the judge and through the form used to make the election, which will also explain the right and how to exercise it. The text of this bill is substantially the same as that proposed by the Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts in September 2008. The Commission's report, discussed below, identified a variety of problems in the local justice court system and proposed a number of different solutions. Model legislation was included as an appendix to the report, and the proposed model legislation was divided into 4 lettered parts, each addressing a different set of issues. This bill addresses one issue only - the due process concerns that stem from having non-attorney judges presiding over criminal cases - and the bill text is contained in section 2 of Part C of the Commission's proposed Model Legislation.
Read the full memo (1,019 words)
Justification
In late 2006, the Assembly Judiciary and Codes committees held a public hearing to address reform of the NYS justice courts. The hearing followed a series of articles in the New York Times that reported on a variety of problems and alleged abuses by some justices of the town and village courts. Some of the cases profiled in the NYT series highlighted the due process and other violations that can result from non-lawyer justices' lack of familiarity with legal and ethical rules, especially in criminal cases where liberty interests are at stake. The debate over the town and village justice courts - whether they should continue in their present form and whether or not judges should have to be attorneys admitted to practice, as required for all other courts in the state - has gone on since at least the early part of the 20th century. As part of this most recent renewal of the debate, a special commission established in 2006 by Chief Judge Judith Kaye issued a report in September 2008 entitled Justice Most Local: The Future of Town and Village Courts in New York State (hereinafter referred to as Justice Most Local). The special commission's report dealt with a wide array of issues, and an appendix to the report includes proposed model legislation designed to address those issues. This bill addresses only a single issue: the right of a criminal defendant, whose liberty is at issue, to proceed in front of a judge who is a lawyer. After an extensive review of the justice courts that included visits to courts across the state, meetings with justices, clerks, prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers and other local government officials, and four public hearings, the special commission concluded that "immediate action" was needed to address, among other things, "due process violations and other legal errors," Justice Most Local, p. 10. In its summary under the heading
"Safeguarding Due Process Rights," the report said the following about non-attorney justices: "... we remain concerned about due process issues and the legal consequences that can be imposed by justices who have not received a legal degree. After extensive debate about the possible proposals that might address these recurring concerns, we believe that the simplest and most effective solution is to provide all defendants...an "opt-out" right to hive his or her case heard by an attorney judge, at a point after arraignment but before a trial is scheduled or before substantive motions are made.... We believe that such an "opt-out" right should address any substantive or due process concerns, without entirely dismantling a system that has been in place for hundreds of years. " Justice Most Local, p. 17. This bill therefore creates such an "opt-out" right, in substantially the same form proposed by the special commission, as the most practical compromise that will give defendants the right to have potentially complex legal issues resolved by lawyer judges without completely divesting non-attorney justices of criminal jurisdiction.
Prior legislative history
New bill.
Fiscal implications
To be determined.
Effective date
This act shall take effect 120 days after it shall have become a law.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.