Progressives’ pro-crime discovery law lets abusers walk scot-free

New York Post - Mar 19th, 2025

A controversial dismissal in a New York court has spotlighted the state's 2019 discovery law reforms, which critics argue are overly burdensome for prosecutors and detrimental to victims. Recently, a Manhattan judge dismissed charges against a man who allegedly assaulted his girlfriend, due to a minor oversight by prosecutors in providing exhaustive police disciplinary records. As a result, the victim was denied a restraining order and had to relocate due to continued harassment. This case highlights a trend where forced dismissals have surged 455% since the law's enactment, with prosecutors struggling to meet the extensive evidence-sharing requirements.

The broader implications of these discovery laws are significant, leading to a 26% increase in declined domestic violence prosecutions and a 75% drop in misdemeanor convictions. Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed amendments to prevent dismissals unless the defense can prove genuine harm from withheld information. However, progressive lawmakers resist these changes, prioritizing defendant rights over victims' safety. This ongoing legal debate underscores the tension between criminal justice reform and victim protection, with critics arguing current policies inadvertently favor perpetrators over their victims.

Kathy Hochul Domestic Violence New York Discovery Laws Prosecutors Progressive Lawmakers Legal Reform

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a critical view of New York's 2019 discovery reforms, focusing on their perceived negative impact on crime victims and the justice system. While the topic is timely and of public interest, the article suffers from a lack of balance, transparency, and source quality. It heavily criticizes the reforms without providing a comprehensive analysis or citing credible sources to support its claims. The emotive language and one-sided perspective may engage readers and provoke debate, but they also limit the article's potential to inform nuanced discussions or influence policy changes. Overall, the article's strengths lie in its relevance and ability to capture attention, while its weaknesses include a lack of supporting evidence and balanced perspectives.

Accuracy

The story makes several factual claims that require verification, such as the dismissal of a case due to technicalities related to police-disciplinary records and the assertion that forced dismissals have increased by 455% since the 2019 discovery reforms. While these claims are specific, they need corroboration from reliable sources to confirm their accuracy. Additionally, the article's mention of a 26% increase in declined domestic violence prosecutions and a 75% drop in misdemeanor convictions are significant statistics that must be verified for precision. The article does not provide citations or direct evidence to support these figures, which affects its overall accuracy.

Balance

The article presents a predominantly one-sided view, heavily criticizing the 2019 discovery reforms and the progressive lawmakers who support them. It frames the reforms as 'pro-criminal' and suggests that they prioritize criminals over victims, which indicates a strong bias. There is little to no representation of opposing viewpoints or a discussion of the potential benefits of the reforms, such as increased transparency and fairness in the legal process. This lack of balance and the omission of important perspectives from reform advocates or legal experts result in a skewed presentation of the issue.

Clarity

The article's language is emotive and charged, using terms like 'pro-criminal' and 'ridiculous' to describe the discovery reforms. This tone can detract from the clarity and neutrality of the information presented. While the structure of the article is straightforward, with a clear argument against the reforms, the lack of balanced perspectives and supporting evidence can make it challenging for readers to fully grasp the nuances of the issue. The article could benefit from a more neutral tone and a clearer presentation of all relevant viewpoints.

Source quality

The article lacks clear attribution to credible sources or experts, which undermines its reliability. It does not reference any specific studies, reports, or expert opinions to substantiate its claims about the impact of the discovery reforms. The absence of source variety and authority weakens the article's credibility, as readers are left without a basis to evaluate the validity of the information presented. Additionally, the potential for conflicts of interest or biases in the reporting is not addressed, further affecting the article's impartiality.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its presentation of facts and arguments. It does not disclose the methodology behind the statistics cited, nor does it explain the context in which the discovery reforms were implemented. There is no discussion of potential conflicts of interest or biases that may influence the article's perspective. Without clear explanations of how the claims are supported or how the information was gathered, readers are left with an incomplete understanding of the issue and its complexities.