Friday, January 8, 2010

New York State Court Reform Appears Stalled

The most ambitious efforts in decades to reform New York State’s vast network of small-town courts — where sessions can be held in a garage, and where more than 1,450 judges who are not lawyers conduct trials — have stalled in Albany. Even a seemingly modest compromise, one that would allow a defendant to request that the judge be a lawyer, seems doomed, its sponsor says.

Just a few years ago, critics of the courts said major changes seemed possible after nearly 100 years of failed efforts. The Legislature and a judicial commission held hearings, and state court officials instituted reforms.

But efforts toward more extensive changes have recently slowed to a crawl. The seemingly simple idea that the local justices should have law degrees went nowhere. Now, even a compromise legislative proposal that would give people facing jail the option of having their cases transferred to a judge who is a lawyer is failing in Albany.

The proposal has been angrily opposed by the justices, who, in addition to conducting trials, also rule on search warrants and send people to jail. But it has also been opposed, though more quietly, by the state’s top court administrators, who often walk a tightrope as they work to keep the courts running.

Just a few years ago, critics of the courts said major changes seemed possible after nearly 100 years of failed efforts. The Legislature and a judicial commission held hearings, and state court officials instituted reforms.

But efforts toward more extensive changes have recently slowed to a crawl. The seemingly simple idea that the local justices should have law degrees went nowhere. Now, even a compromise legislative proposal that would give people facing jail the option of having their cases transferred to a judge who is a lawyer is failing in Albany.

The proposal has been angrily opposed by the justices. But it has also been opposed, though more quietly, by the state’s top court administrators, who often walk a tightrope as they work to keep the courts running. A sponsor, Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Manhattan Democrat, said it was unlikely to pass this year. He said colleagues had told him that it threatened the stature of the justices, who are often tightly woven into local politics.

“They say, ‘I’m getting a whole lot of pressure about a bill you have,’ ” Mr. O’Donnell said. Critics of the courts say the bill’s failure would signal an end to the latest effort to change the courts.

“If this minimal legislative initiative can’t succeed, the possibility of strong, efficient, constitutionally protective local courts will never happen in this state in my lifetime,” said Eve Burton, a lawyer who was a member of a state commission that studied the town and village courts in 2007.

Full Article and Source:
Reform of New York's Small Town Courts Stalls

8 comments:

StandUp said...

NY has been corrupt for years and unfortunately, until the "club" is gone, reform will be a very steep uphill battle.

Thelma said...

Everyone I speak with says that their state court system is the most corrupt. I agree with everyone!

Anonymous said...

New York has a larger problem than their so-called "justice" courts:
I've tested them all, and they are ALL corrupt!

Anonymous said...

What's the difference if a magistrate judge is a lawyer or not? It ain't just knowing the law!

If he engages in misconduct, and a lawyer, he could lose his license.

But it doesn't always work that way in NY! The NYSCJC may go after the little courts more than the big ones, but they're corrupt as well, when they disbar the good guys (whistleblowers) and cover up for the bad ones who are politically well connected.

Max said...

There has to be a continuing and growing louder cry for reform from the public to make any change. These guys have dug their heels in and have no desire to change.

Betty said...

Thanks for this story. I hope the media keeps the spotlight on the NY court system and the bulb just gets brighter and brighter!

Sam said...

Eve Burton is right!

Anonymous said...

I say we revert to the vigilante tactic and to hell with all the judges and lawyers.... an eye for an eye!!