Landmark Court Ruling for Transparency in New York Prosecutorial Misconduct Cases
“The public cannot have faith in a process that it cannot see.” – Judge Marrero’s decision, P.85
New York – In a victory for the public and transparency, federal judge Victor Marrero held that the public has a First Amendment right to know what authorities have done with allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. The court issued its July 22 decision in the case CRC v. LaSalle, finding that the Second Department and Grievance Committees can no longer conceal from public view the decisions they have made, or will make, regarding 21 ethics complaints filed against current and former Queens prosecutors.
In total, from 2021 to 2023, law professors and attorneys filed 50 ethics complaints alleging prosecutorial misconduct by New York prosecutors and published them online at AccountabilityNY.org. The ethics complaints include very serious misconduct allegations, such as providing secret benefits to a witness, allowing a witness to lie to the jury, concealing evidence of innocence, unlawfully discriminating against Black jurors, and misleading the jury about the evidence in the case.
In a threatening response to the initial complaints, Corporation Counsel sent a letter to the Grievance Committees, warning that the professors were engaging in an “orchestrated campaign to upend the attorney grievance process” in a “misuse and indeed abuse” of the process “to promote a political agenda.” The federal court, in an earlier ruling in CRC v. Cushman (then Pestana), found that Corporation Counsel’s letter was outside the bounds of the law as “The First Amendment prohibits a state from banning complainants from publishing their own attorney grievance complaints.”
Though nearly all the complaints were based on public court findings of improper conduct (and the remainder were based on findings by the prosecutor offices themselves), the Grievance Committees, which are the subsidiaries of the courts that are in charge of attorney discipline, have not shared what they’ve done in nearly all instances.
As of today, more than three years after the initial complaints were filed, not a single one of the prosecutors named in complaints has a record of public discipline (Attorney Detail Report).
This decision opens up a secretive government bureaucracy that has, for too long, been harshly criticized for shielding some of the most important public officials–prosecutors–from accountability when they break the law. Shedding sunlight on the workings of how the state sweeps prosecutorial misconduct under the rug is vital, especially in times of rising authoritarianism and threats to the democratic rule of law.
Powerful quotations from yesterday’s decision are below; the full decision is linked here.
Decision Summary:
The federal court ruled that Civil Rights Corps, the law professors, and the general public have a presumptive First Amendment right to see:
- Disciplinary hearings;
- Documents necessary to understand those hearings (such as court orders, motions and related submissions, documentary evidence, and docket sheets); and
- Grievance Committees dispositions.
The state can attempt to make on-the-record justifications for nondisclosure in certain situations. See the full order starting at page 117 of the decision.
From the court’s opinion:
- “If the proceedings and records related to the Grievance Complaints may embarrass state prosecutors, the Supreme Court long ago acknowledged that public officials’ reputations are not a higher value that supersedes the First Amendment.” (P.114)
- “The misconduct of attorneys is uniquely harmful to administration of justice and the rule of law in our society, different from the misconduct of other professionals like doctors and dentists. Whereas the misconduct of a doctor or a dentist may cause serious consequences — injury or even death — to their patients, the misconduct of attorneys can shake the public’s confidence in the justice system and foundational legal institutions on which we all rely for protection. For instance, as relevant to the Grievance Complaints in this case, a lawyer serving as a state prosecutor who does not disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant may shake public confidence in the criminal courts’ ability to ascertain truth in a criminal trial and, if left unremedied, can result in wrongful punishment and widespread doubts in many convictions.” (PP.87-88)
- “The hardship to Plaintiffs of withholding judicial decision is apparent. The longer that Plaintiffs are deprived access to the proceedings and records at the heart of this dispute, the longer their purported constitutional right to view the work of government is violated. As the Court already noted in the context of standing: “Each passing day may constitute a separate and cognizable infringement of the First Amendment.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126 (quoting Grove Fresh Distrib., Inc., 24 F.3d at 897)” (P.45)
##
Media Contact:
Peter Santina | (202) 894-6126 | peter@civilrightscorps.org