Hochul’s Budget Plan Threatens Essential Discovery Reforms

The ongoing disputes in Albany regarding New York’s hazardous discovery law only underscores Governor Hochul’s incompetence — leaving all of us at ongoing risk.

The state’s budget is stalled as progressive lawmakers, influenced by affluent lobbyists, are adamant about maintaining a reckless 2020 “reform” that effectively decriminalized perilous offenses by making them nearly impossible to prosecute.

Hochul is attempting to propose some minor tweaks to the law during her budget preparation — the same covert method that instituted it.

Rather, she should advocate for a completely new bill that genuinely rectifies the current law, which prioritizes pointless paperwork over the protection of New Yorkers.

The recent case dismissal against Reuben St. Marc illustrates this perfectly.

A year ago, St. Marc was arraigned on Long Island for driving under the influence.

Prosecutors amassed extensive documentation demonstrating their “readiness for trial” and shared it with St. Marc’s legal team before the mandated June 24, 2024 deadline. This evidence included body-worn camera footage from the Nassau County Police Department officers who apprehended St. Marc.

However, on March 21, Nassau District Court Judge David W. Wright dismissed the case due to reasons that only make sense within the context of New York’s erratic discovery law.

St. Marc’s lawyers contended that the prosecution missed the deadline by not supplying the audit trail data for the officers’ body-worn cameras.

To be clear: The prosecutors provided the actual footage that clearly depicted the incident.

Prosecutors informed Wright that Nassau County PD’s agreement with GETAC, the tech firm responsible for their body-worn cameras, does not include audit trails — and not even the most diligent attorney can acquire evidence that the police do not possess.

More importantly, GETAC does provide the metadata for the videos, comprising all the details an audit trail would include. Furthermore, the prosecutors did transfer the metadata from the cameras to the defense.

In essence, the prosecutors shared all the irrelevant data that the discovery law unnecessarily demands — merely in a different format.

Yet the judge maintained that if a “contract limitation between law enforcement and a third-party vendor” could excuse prosecutors from providing documents mandated by the exacting discovery law, then police and prosecutors could begin drafting contracts purely to obscure their responsibilities.

Wright explicitly determined that the format of the information collected and presented by the prosecution indicated that the blanket obligation of the discovery law had not been satisfied — hence, St. Marc was acquitted.

This leads to the question: why do we have such a ridiculous, pedantic law?

Do New Yorkers prefer that prosecutors painstakingly gather patently useless “evidence” — or that they focus on collecting information relevant to establish whether Reuben St. Marc was driving intoxicated around Long Island?

Keep in mind: DWI cases are rarely litigated with metadata and audit trails — the actual video documentation of the defendant’s arrest, along with other pertinent evidence, usually suffices.

Under Hochul’s painstakingly modest proposal, prosecutors would still be required to track down that audit trail data (despite it being a sheer waste of taxpayer resources).

They would simply have more time to submit it — instead of facing immediate dismissal over trivial busywork that has no connection to justice.

Yet, even this slight advancement in a detrimental law is being obstructed by “progressive” legislators.

This is not surprising: Discovery “reform” was never about enhancing fairness in the system.

Its excesses — and triumphs — are fundamentally aimed at hindering prosecutors and permitting more criminals to evade accountability within what progressives deem a “systemically racist” criminal justice system.

In this regard, it has indeed succeeded.

Since the implementation of the discovery law, there has been a disheartening decline in criminal penalties for DWIs and other vehicle traffic offenses.

Prior to the discovery reform, prosecutors dismissed or declined an average of 19% of VTL arrests over four years.

That figure soared to an average of 51% of VTL cases being dismissed or declined in the subsequent four years — even though the overall number of arrests fell significantly, which should have simplified prosecution.

Over half of impaired drivers face no repercussions now. And yes, this is costing lives.

Traffic fatalities surged by 26% after the discovery law was enacted, according to the state comptroller’s office.

Moreover, the proportion of traffic fatalities attributed to DWI has been continually increasing. As of 2023, 50 NYC traffic deaths were directly linked to DWI, a 24% rise over the preceding three-year average, as reported by the city Department of Transportation.

In fact, over 30% of crashes statewide now involve alcohol.

We’ll never ascertain whether St. Marc was guilty of, for instance, indulging in tequila shots and then careening through Massapequa.

His case — like countless others involving reckless criminal behavior — was determined not based on its merits, but on an anti-prosecution loophole established by a negligent law.

Hochul’s decision to stifle this vital conversation within Albany’s obscure budget discussions robs New Yorkers of transparent dialogue and accountability.

Yes, her suggested revisions would be better than nothing — but a diluted amendment would represent the worst of both worlds, delaying meaningful reform indefinitely.

The vigorous debate surrounding discovery demonstrates just how much support there is for serious reforms — from both ends of the political spectrum — if she directly pursued them within the standard legislative process this spring.

Let’s engage in that debate in the open, not behind the shadows of budget negotiations.

Hannah E. Meyers is a fellow and the director of policing and public safety at the Manhattan Institute.