Relates to off-hours arraignment parts in counties outside the city of New York; authorizes the establishment of a plan to designate off-hours arraignment parts in select local criminal courts of a county.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A10360
SPONSOR: Lentol TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the judiciary law, the criminal proce-
dure law and the uniform justice court act, in relation to off-hours
arraignment parts in counties outside of the city of New York
This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of
the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of his Advisory
Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure and with the endorsement of his
Local Courts Advisory Committee.
In order to facilitate the ability of local criminal courts to conduct
off-hours arraignment proceedings, this measure would amend the Judici-
ary Law, the Criminal Procedure Law and the Uniform Justice Court Act to
allow for a plan of rotating arraignment parts among the local criminal
courts within each county outside New York City.
In Hurrell-Harring v New York (15 NY3d 8 (2010)), the Court of Appeals
reaffirmed the fundamental right of an indigent accused of crime to be
represented by counsel at material stages of criminal proceedings. The
Court unequivocally declared that this right attaches at an accused's
arraignment, both as a statutory obligation under New York law (see CPL
170.10(3), 180.20(3)), and as a constitutional requirement under the
United States Supreme Court's seminal decision in Gideon v Wainwright
(372 U.S. 335 (1963)). As stated by the Court, "nothing in the statute
may be read to justify the conclusion that the presence of defense coun-
sel at arraignment is ever dispensable, except at a defendant's informed
option, when matters affecting the defendant's pretrial liberty or abil-
ity subsequently to defend against the charges are to be decided. Nor is
there merit to . . . (the) suggestion that the Sixth Amendment right to
counsel is not yet fully implicated . . ." (15 NY3d at 21).
In practice, however, local courts, county governments and indigent
defense providers struggle to meet these critical obligations, most
notably during off-hours arraignments. In many jurisdictions, local law
enforcement do not have the ability to detain an accused in a local
lockup, either because of inadequate overnight holding facilities or
lack of staffing or both. Therefore, when a suspect is arrested at night
or on weekends, the police must ask the local judge to re-open the
courthouse to conduct an off-hours arraignment and issue a securing
order either releasing the defendant on recognizance or authorizing
detention at a county facility (see CPL 170.10(7); 180.10(6)). Finding
qualified defense counsel for indigent defendants in these circumstances
can be extremely difficult. The responsibility for finding counsel often
falls upon the individual judge, and the nearest qualified counsel may
be =reachable or unavailable. Similarly, off-hours arraignments place
great strain on indigent defense providers and prosecutors. Inadequate
county funding, long travel times to the courthouse and too few quali-
fied attorneys in sparsely-populated counties can result in both prose-
cutors and defense counsel being unable to attend an off-hours arraign-
ment. The court has limited options in such a case: failure to conduct
the arraignment may jeopardize public safety or result in unnecessary
detention of the defendant, yet issuing a securing order without defense
counsel may create serious legal and ethical issues.
The historic settlement of the Hurrell-Harring lawsuit promises some
welcome relief in this area, at least for 'the five counties involved in
the settlement (Onondaga, Ontario, Schuyler, Suffolk and Washington).
Among other conditions, the settlement tasks the Office. of Indigent
Legal Services (ILS) with oversight and authority to distribute grant
funding to improve delivery of indigent defense services in those coun-
ties, including money to ensure counsel at first appearance. However,
Hurrell-Harring does not address the remaining counties in the state,
and it is expected that complying with statutory and constitutional
mandates at arraignment proceedings will continue to be challenging.
This measure is designed to facilitate the availability of public defen-
ders or assigned counsel for defendants in need of legal representation
at arraignments, without unduly burdening local government or placing
additional stress on each of the stakeholders in the system, including
magistrate judges, law enforcement and indigent defense service provid-
ers. The measure broadens the jurisdiction of local courts to conduct
off-hours arraignments in special off-hours arraignment parts, staffed
by the same judges who currently preside over arraignments. By authoriz-
ing off-hours arraignments in only a few locations, the necessary stake-
holders will benefit from having fewer courts to cover. Additionally,
local law enforcement will be able to rely on there always being a court
available to issue securing orders. Finally, local magistrate judges,
who now must be on call at all hours and all days, will need to open
their courthouses on only designated days in accordance with a rotation
schedule, published in advance, that will provide for periodic assign-
ment of all of the judges or justices of the local criminal courts in
the affected counties.
This measure also recognizes that many courts have evening hours, and
thus an individual local court may be available at the same time that
the off-hours part is operating. In such a case, local law enforcement
may bring the suspect to the open court for arraignment, provided that
there is a defense attorney available to represent defendant at the
arraignment. If no attorney is available, the measure provides that the
court must direct that the arraignment be continued in the off-hours
part.
Section one of the measure adds Judiciary Law § 212(w), authorizing the
Chief Administrative Judge, after consulting with the necessary stake-
holders, and with the approval of the Administrative Board of the
Courts, to establish a plan for the designation of off-hours arraignment
parts in the local criminal courts of a county to be held on a rotating
basis.
Sections two, three and four of the measure amend CPL sections 100.55,
120.90 and 140.20 to provide that where an off-hours arraignment part
has been established in a local criminal court of a county, law enforce-
ment authorities must bring each person arrested in the county while
such part is operational before the part for filing of the accusatory
instrument and arraignment thereon. Following arraignment, the off-hours
court is required to remit the action to a court that has trial juris-
diction over that action (CPL 170.15; 180.20).
Section five of the measure amends section 106 of the Uniform Justice
Court Act to add a cross-reference to § 212(w) of the Judiciary Law to
make clear that assigned judges and justices have jurisdiction to handle
matters in an off-hours arraignment part.
The measure will be effective 90 days after being signed into law and is
anticipated to realize significant savings to localities in meeting
their statutory and constitutional obligations for assigned counsel to
appear at arraignments.
2016 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
OCA 2016-67R
Senate 7209 (Senator Bonacic) (referred to Judiciary)
