People v. Spaulding

Decision Date29 June 2022
Docket NumberDocket No. CR-010039-21BX
PartiesThe People of the State of New York v. Spaulding, Defendant.
CourtNew York Criminal Court

Unpublished Opinion

For the People: Darcel Clark, District Attorney of Bronx County (by ADA Kevin Risch)

For Mr. Spaulding: Benjamin R. Williams, The Legal Aid Society

Wanda L. Licitra, J.

Pursuant to C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b), the defense has moved to dismiss this case. They allege that the People did not file a proper certificate of compliance ("COC") before stating ready for trial within 90 days of arraignment. Specifically, they allege that the People filed their COC without first disclosing various disciplinary records under C.P.L. § 245.20(1)(k) relating to the People's police witnesses. The People concede that they did not disclose "the underlying summaries or additional information" relating to substantiated misconduct before filing their COC. Nonetheless, they maintain that their COC was proper. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The procedural history is uncontested. On August 6, 2021, Bronx Criminal Court arraigned Mr. Spaulding. He pled not guilty. On September 24, 2021, the People filed a supporting deposition. On October 19, 2021, Mr. Spaulding did not appear, and the Court stayed a bench warrant. On November 3 2021-the 89th day after arraignments-the People filed and served an off-calendar COC and a statement of readiness. On November 9, 2021, Mr. Spaulding did not appear, and the Court issued a bench warrant. On November 15, 2021, Mr. Spaulding appeared in custody before an arraignment court in New York County, which vacated the bench warrant on this case and sent this case back to the Bronx for November 16, 2021. On that day, even though he was in the custody of the New York City Department of Corrections on this case and on another matter Mr. Spaulding was not produced before the Court. On December 16, 2021, the Court set a motion schedule, which resulted in this motion.

LEGAL DISCUSSION
I. The COC in this case was not proper.

Because the People withheld various disciplinary records relating to prior bad acts by their police witnesses, their COC was not proper. The discovery statute works as follows. First, the People must make a diligent effort to ascertain the existence of items and information subject to discovery. C.P.L §§ 245.50(1), 245.20(2). That includes "all items and information that relate to the subject matter of the case and are in the possession, custody or control of the prosecution or persons under the prosecution's direction or control." C.P.L. § 245.20(1). The "possession, custody or control of the prosecution" includes all such items and information "in the possession of any New York state or local police or law enforcement agency." C.P.L. § 245.20(2). Second the People must "disclose[]" and make available "all known material and information subject to discovery" in their possession, custody, or control. C.P.L. §§ 245.50(1); 245.20(2). The only default statutory exception to this requirement is for items that are "lost or destroyed." C.P.L. § 245.50(1). Third, the People must file and serve a proper certificate of compliance, truthfully affirming 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." Id. Finally, the People cannot be deemed ready for trial until they file and serve a COC meeting these requirements, absent an individualized finding of special circumstances. C.P.L. §§ 30.30(5); 245.50(3).

As the Appellate Division has explained, until C.P.L. § 245.20(1) material is "actually produced" to the defense, the prosecution's COC "[can]not be deemed complete." People ex rel. Ferro v. Brann, 197 A.D.3d 787, 788 (2d Dep't 2021). This Court agrees-as it must [1] -just like other courts across the state. "In order for the People to file a valid certificate of compliance, they must actually turn over all known material and information." E.g., People v. Cooper, 71 Misc.3d 559, 566 (Erie Cty. Cty. Ct. 2021); People v. Portillo, 73 Misc.3d 216, 229 (Suffolk Cty. Sup. Ct. 2021) (stating the same); see also People v. Naula, 75 Misc.3d 1205 (A), at *4 (Queens Cty. Sup. Ct. 2022) ("[T]he People's filing of a certificate of compliance... cannot be deemed complete until all material and information subject to discovery was actually disclosed."); People v. Perez, 75 Misc.3d 1205 (A) (Bronx Cty. Crim. Ct. 2022) ("[T]he People failed to meet their discovery obligations when the COC was filed and therefore, the certificate is deemed invalid."); People v. Williams, 73 Misc.3d 1209 (A), at *2 (NY Cty. Crim. Ct. 2021) ("The People's failure to disclose rendered their COC invalid, regardless of the rationale for that failure."); People v. Quinlan, 71 Misc.3d 226, 271 (Bronx Cty. Crim. Ct. 2021) ("[W]hat the People may not do is file a certificate of compliance in which they claim to have exercised due diligence and turned over all known material and information while at the same time not actually turning over all known material and information."); People v. Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d 563, 574 (Kings Cty. Crim. Ct. 2020) (stating the same).

As the Appellate Division has also recognized, the plain text meaning of C.P.L. § 245.20(1)(k) requires the People to disclose all underlying information relating to the misconduct of their police witnesses-mere summaries are not sufficient. Matter of Jayson C., 200 A.D.3d 447 (1st Dep't 2021); see also People v. Polanco-Chavarria, 74 Misc.3d 1210 (A), at *4 (Rockland Cty. Cty. Ct. 2021) (analyzing Jayson C.).

Innumerable lower courts have held the same. E.g., id.; People v. Williams, 72 Misc.3d 1214 (A), at *3 (NY Cty. Crim. Ct. 2021); People v. Castellanos, 72 Misc.3d 371, 375-76 (Bronx Cty. Sup. Ct. 2021) ("The court holds that when the statute explicitly says 'all' information and evidence that tends to impeach credibility, the statute means just that: all underlying records for substantiated and unsubstantiated misconduct complaints must be provided by the People."); People v. Perez, 71 Misc.3d 1214 (A) (Bronx Cty. Crim. Ct. 2021); People v. Herrera, 71 Misc.3d 1205 (A) (Nassau Cty. Dist. Ct. 2021); Cooper, 71 Misc.3d 559; People v. Edwards, 74 Misc.3d 433 (NY Cty. Crim. Ct. 2021).

And that is no surprise. The statute plainly requires that the People disclose "all evidence and information that tends to impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness... [w]hether or not in tangible form." C.P.L. § 245.20(1)(k). This mandate encompasses the substance of allegations, as well as the tangible files, records, and other materials on which disciplinary findings against the People's police witnesses are based.

As a result, the People's withholding of police misconduct records here violates their C.P.L. § 245.20(1) discovery obligations. The People note that they intend to call police officers Alex Schmidt, Alex Tegan, and Kamaal Ryan as their witnesses at trial. Resp. at 6. They affirm that they have disclosed "substantiated summaries" of misconduct, "CCRB allegation history," and "lawsuit information" for the officers for whom it exists. Id. at 6-7. However, they concede, as the defense has alleged, that they "have not yet disclosed the underlying summaries or additional information related to three different substantiated allegations" of Officer Alex Tegan's misconduct in NYPD possession. Id. at 8. [2] The defense also alleges that the People have entirely redacted "an additional fourth item listed on the disclosure form" and that the People have produced "no underlying documentation" regarding NYPD disciplinary records. Def. Mot. ¶ 48. The People do not specifically deny those allegations. See generally Resp. 4-10.

Because the People did not disclose these materials, their COC was not proper. They did precisely what they "may not do": they "file[d] a certificate of compliance in which they claim[ed] to have exercised due diligence and turned over all known material and information, while at the same time not actually [having] turn[ed] over all known material and information." Quinlan, 71 Misc.3d at 271; see also Adrovic, 69 Misc.3d at 574 (noting the same).

The People here did not exercise the requisite due diligence before filing their COC. In the context of the discovery statute, "due diligence" concerns the People's effort "to ascertain the existence" of discoverable material. C.P.L. § 245.50(1). After diligently ascertaining the existence of discoverable material, the People must then make that material available to the defense. Id. Here, the People did not do either. For the first time in this motion briefing, the People allege that they "requested the underlying IAB logs" and "as of March 3, 2022, were informed that the logs were not in the Bronx District Attorney's Office Discovery Compliance Bureau file." Resp. at 8. This statement implies that the People only requested the underlying NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau files from another part of their own office and not from the NYPD itself. See id. The People also state that they are "informed that 'due to staffing shortages in the NYPD's Giglio Unit obtaining underlying documents will take much longer than it has in the past.'" Id. The People do not explain who informed them of this claim or why it justified filing a COC despite knowing that there were discovery documents outstanding. These bare allegations-establishing at best an intraoffice "request"-do not fulfill the People's statutory obligation to "ensure that a flow of information is maintained between the police... and [their...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT