New York Criminal Attorney Blog
As we have discussed often, New York’s speedy trial statute can be a defendant’s best friend. A March 2024 case before a New York appellate court emphasized the importance of coming to court prepared for trial when the court expects you to be prepared for trial. In this particular case, the prosecution filed a “statement of readiness” prior to a trial for reckless driving, only to later confess it was not ready to move forward and ask for more time to prepare for trial. Once the prosecution asked for extensions (without any explanation) three times in a row, the trial court dismissed the case. On appeal, the higher court decided this was the correct ruling, given that the state declared it was ready and then, without reason, sought an extension three different times.
The Prosecution’s Extensions
The defendant was arrested and charged with reckless driving in early December 2017. A couple of weeks later, when it became apparent the case was going to go to trial, the State filed what is called a “certificate of readiness,” declaring to the court that it was ready for trial. The State and the defendant appeared for the first day of trial on September 5, 2018, at which point the State asked for a 12-day extension. The parties reappeared on October 18, at which time the State again admitted it was not ready for trial. The court extended the trial for a third time, and again, on November 28, the State told the court it was unprepared.
Each time, the State failed to offer any reason that it needed an extension. By the time the parties appeared for the fourth time on February 4, 2018, 420 days had passed between the defendant’s indictment and the first day of trial. The defendant’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. The defendant appealed, the higher court reversed, and the State again appealed. The case then came before the New York Court of Appeals.
The Prosecution’s Error
On appeal, the highest court determined that the prosecution made an error in filing its certificate of readiness and later failing to offer a reason that it was not actually prepared for trial. The State had a duty to explain the reason for its unreadiness, and because it was not ready on three trial dates in a row, the motion to dismiss should have been granted. It was unfair, said the court, for the defendant to suffer such a significant delay without good cause.
With that, then, the court sided with the defendant and affirmed that his indictment was vacated.
Are You in Need of a New York Vehicular Crimes Attorney?
At Tilem & Associates, we provide relentless representation, litigating with your goals and priorities in mind. If you need a New York vehicular crimes attorney and don’t want to settle for anything but the best, give our office a call as soon as you can. We offer free and confidential consultations at 877-377-8666. You can also fill out our online form if you would like to tell us about your case and have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible.