New York Gov. Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill days before Christmas that would have made it easier for people who have pleaded guilty to crimes to challenge their convictions, a measure that was favored by criminal justice reformers but fiercely opposed by prosecutors.

The Democrat said the bill’s “sweeping expansion of eligibility for post-conviction relief” would “up-end the judicial system and create an unjustifiable risk of flooding the courts with frivolous claims,” in a veto letter released Saturday.

Under existing state law, criminal defendants who plead guilty are usually barred from trying to get their cases reopened based on a new claim of innocence, except in certain circumstances involving new DNA evidence.

The bill passed by the Legislature in June would have expanded the types of evidence that could be considered proof of innocence, including video footage or evidence of someone else confessing to a crime. Arguments that a person was coerced into a false guilty plea would have also been considered.

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    11 months ago

    The Democrat said the bill’s “sweeping expansion of eligibility for post-conviction relief” would “up-end the judicial system and create an unjustifiable risk of flooding the courts with frivolous claims,” in a veto letter released Saturday.

    Hello? The judicial system is broken. It needs to be upended.

    The bill passed by the Legislature in June would have expanded the types of evidence that could be considered proof of innocence, including video footage or evidence of someone else confessing to a crime. Arguments that a person was coerced into a false guilty plea would have also been considered.

    Also, how could a claim that requires new evidence that a person was wrongly convicted ever, in any way, be considered frivolous?! What the hell is this idiot thinking?

    • TopShelfVanilla
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      11 months ago

      The system is working exactly as designed. This almost accidentally made it a little fairer to prisoners.

    • Vegaprime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      I wouldn’t doubt it if 99% took a plea because they were threatened with a super harsh sentence as an alternative. If everyone stopped pleading you would have the same backlog “upending” the court system. Think that’s the case in Oregon, no deals so everyone wants to goto trial.

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        New York, and police in the US in general, have a long history of coercing confessions out of people. There are many reasons why people might confess to a crime they didn’t commit, and threats of overly harsh sentences are one of them. Roughly 1 in 6 convictions that are overturned in the US involve a false confession. Anytime there is evidence that someone was coerced to confess, there should be a thorough review. Her calling such filings frivolous offends me to the core.

      • Uranium3006@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Trials are how it’s supposed to work. I’d argue the plea bargain system de facto violates the right to a fair trial since the vast majority of prisoners never got one