Opinion
No. CR7238-22
09-28-2023
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Antoine Williams, Defendant.
Ryan A. Fortuna, Esq., Assistant District Attorney Erie County District Attorney's Office For the People Osemudiamen Ojeme, Esq. The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc. For the Defendant
Unpublished Opinion
Ryan A. Fortuna, Esq., Assistant District Attorney Erie County District Attorney's Office For the People
Osemudiamen Ojeme, Esq. The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc. For the Defendant
Rebecca L. Town, J.
BACKGROUND
Before this Court is the above-captioned Defendant's motion to dismiss the instant misdemeanor information pursuant to CPL § 30.30 and § 170.30, respectively. The Court considers the Notice of Motion with the supporting affirmation of defense counsel Osemudiamen Ojeme, Esq., affirmed the 30th day of August, 2023 and the Erie County District Attorney's opposition to the instant motion by the affidavit of Assistant District Attorney Ryan A. Fortuna, Esq., affirmed the 18th day of September, 2023, as well as all prior pleadings and proceedings held herein.
Defendant was arraigned on the instant initiating charges on December 29, 2022. On March 6, 2023, the People declared readiness for trial and filed their required certificate of compliance with the CPL § 245 discovery obligations.
On June 8, 2023, Defendant put the People on notice that there may be missing body camera footage; counsel thereafter filed a motion challenging the People's Certificate of Compliance. The People's Answer to the Defendant's motion to dismiss acknowledged only that there may be missing video at a discovery conference on August 1, 2023. This finally prompted the People to check with the Buffalo Police Department for the missing discovery material, which according to the People's own admissions was the only time after their first inquiry that the People asked for additional video footage. The Buffalo Police Department turned over additional discoverable body camera footage on August 15, 2023.
On February 8, 2023, Defendant, by his counsel Osemudiamen Ojeme, Esq. argued a motion to dismiss the instant misdemeanor information pursuant to CPL 30.30 on the basis that the People's statement of readiness was illusory as the People had failed to comply with their CPL § 245 discovery obligations. In opposition, the People argue, inter alia, that this Court must apply a prejudice analysis to the missing discovery material and that to the extent noncompliance with CPL § 245 is determined, that the People should only be sanctioned in an extent proportional to the prejudice suffered by the defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the People's analysis is entirely in contravention to the established standard of analysis for evaluating the People's Certificate of Compliance.
OPINION
In the complex tapestry of our jurisprudential history, the accused's right to a prompt adjudication stands as an unyielding beacon. Such bulwarks against dilatory prosecution can trace their lineage well beyond our young Republic. The Assize of Clarendon, manifesting its dictates in 1166 A.D., gave birth to a rudimentary procedural expectation for those standing in the shadow of justice. In similar spirit, the Magna Carta of 1215 A.D. whispered of like protections. Sir Edward Coke, that eminent sentinel of British jurisprudence, underscored the indispensability of a swift trial in his esteemed Institutes, casting a profound influence upon the legal minds in colonial America.
By the time the ink dried on our Sixth Amendment in 1791, this right had already found solace in several state constitutions. Thus, it is with a nod to inevitability, not mere serendipity, that in the 231 years after the Sixth Amendment's ratification, New York law has preserved and elaborated upon this hallowed guarantee. The case at bar presents an occasion wherein deviation from this sacred path has been alleged, and upon scrupulous examination of the record and upon due deliberation of the arguments raised by all parties to this criminal proceeding, this Court is compelled to concur with the Defendant's points of counsel.
Where, as here, a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor, the People must declare readiness for trial within three months of the commencement of the action (CPL § 30.30 [1] [b]). The statutory period is calculated by computing the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument and the People's declaration of readiness, subtracting any periods of delay that are excludable under the terms of the statute and then adding to the result any postreadiness periods of delay that are actually attributable to the People and are ineligible for an exclusion (People v Barnett, 158 A.D.3d 1279, 1280 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1078 [2018]).
The People's readiness for trial is always comprised of two elements. First, the prosecutor must issue a written notice of readiness or declare readiness in open court. Second, the People must in fact be ready to proceed with trial at the time readiness is declared (People v Chavis, 91 N.Y.2d 500, 505 [1998] see People v Hill, 209 A.D.3d 1262, 1264 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 986 [2022]). Pursuant to CPL § 30.30 [5], "any statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of CPL § 245.20."
Importantly, it is clearly spelled out in the statute that "all items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution" (CPL 245.20 [2]). The People's compliance with their discovery obligations is, by statute, inexorably tied to the calculation of speedy trial time under CPL 30.30, which requires the People to affirm that "after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery" (CPL § 245.50 [1]). CPL § 30.30 (5) states "Any statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of section 245.20." Thus, the People's statement of readiness for trial is illusory whenever a certificate of compliance is deemed improper (see CPL 30.30[5]; People v Barnett, 58 Misc.3d 1000, 1002 [Sup Ct, NY County 2020]).
The People's contention that a prejudice analysis should be used in determining the validity of the certificate of compliance and statement of readiness is inapposite to the clear standard set forth by the Fourth Department, which holds that "the court's use of a prejudice-only standard for evaluating the propriety of the certificate of compliance was error because the clear and unambiguous terms of CPL 245.50 establish that a certificate of compliance is proper where its filing is 'in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances' (People v Gaskin, 214 A.D.3d 1353 [4th Dept 2023]). On a CPL § 30.30 motion, the question before this Court "is not whether defendant was prejudiced by an improper certificate of compliance (id. citing People v Trotman, 77 Misc.3d 1210 [A], 2022 NY Slip Op 51181 [U] [Crim Ct, Queens County 2022]; People v Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d 563, 574 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2020]).
Here, reminiscent of the contours of Gaskin, the People appear to err in their legal cartography. They seemingly intermingle the standards tied to entreaties under CPL § 245.80 requests for sanctions, which indeed invites a prejudice calculus, with the true measure by which a trial court must employ to assess the propriety of a certificate of compliance for the express purpose of determining whether the People's statement of readiness was valid. The edicts of Gaskin require that the appropriate analysis is always whether the People's certificate of compliance was made in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances (id.)
The issue of whether the People's conduct in compliance with their CPL § 245.20 obligations is a fact sensitive inquiry. Historically, the term "good faith" refers to faithfulness to one's duty or obligation" (Black's Law Dictionary [8th ed 2004], good faith) a definition which comports with the context of CPL § 245. Consistent with this approach, the Appellate Division has, for 45 years, held that "The term 'good faith' does not merely mean the opposite of the phrase "actual intent to defraud The lack of good faith imports a failure to deal honestly, fairly and openly" (Southern Ind. v Jeremias, 66 A.D.2d 178 [2d Dept 1978]). While numerous courts throughout New York have held that belated disclosures should not invalidate a certificate of compliance, in doing so such courts have assumed good faith and reasonableness in the People's conduct at the time readiness was declared.
An invalid certificate of compliance, that is, a certificate of compliance not made in good faith or reasonable under the circumstances automatically results in an illusory declaration of readiness. The consequence of an illusory declaration of readiness is not merely an academic concern, it bears directly upon a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial, a right that is of paramount importance in our constitutional system. A defendant should not languish in uncertainty based upon an empty proclamation of preparedness.
In the present matter, the People bore the mantle of producing all recordings captured by the body cameras in question. Their initial offering yielded nineteen such cinematic records, pertinent to the Defendant's detention. However, on June 8, 2023, the Defendant, with the clarity of purpose, signaled to the People a lingering suspicion that there existed additional undivulged camera footage. The sands of time ebbed for near two months before the People entertained the specter of omitted discovery. Only then did they extend an inquiring hand to the Buffalo Police Department. And lo and behold, a 20th visual account, ensconced within the chambers of the Buffalo Police Department-a holding which, by the dictates of our statutes, is tantamount to being in the possession of the People (CPL § 245.20 [2] ["all items and information related to the prosecution of a charge in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency shall be deemed to be in the possession of the prosecution"]) - saw the light of day on August 15, 2023.
The rather expedient revelation of this material, once earnestly sought, lends formidable heft to the Defendant's contention: The People's proclamation of readiness in March 2023 might have been but a phantasm, as it seemed to tread lightly over the solemn commitments of CPL § 245.20 in their declaring readiness. The alacrity with which the elusive material emerged from the shadows, in a mere fortnight, underscores with a resonant clarity the Defendant's argument-that perhaps the People did not tread the path of discovery with the requisite due diligence, reasonableness, and good faith that their obligations demanded. The People's de minimis attempt at locating discoverable body camera footage owed to this Defendant, and providing this Court no explanation for their failure to do so, constitutes conclude lack of good faith, due diligence, and a failure to exercise a reasonable inquiry under the circumstance. Hence, this Court finds that the People's original statement of readiness was illusory because its corresponding CPL § 245 discovery obligations, and consequently, certificate of compliance was not made in good faith nor was its single discovery inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. Consequently, the time under CPL § 30.30 to declare ready for trial on the instant misdemeanor information has expired and this case is dismissed for delay of prosecution.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Defendant pursuant to CPL 30.30 is GRANTED motion to dismiss the instant is granted and the misdemeanor information is DISMISSED.