Judges in New York City and neighboring counties have been consistently handing down lengthy criminal sentences, resulting in higher courts later reducing them by over 1,200 years, as per a recent data analysis shared with Gothamist.
Scrutinize, a judicial transparency organization, in collaboration with NYU’s Center on Race, Inequality and the Law, conducted an analysis of more than 300 appellate decisions made between 2007 and 2023. The focus was on cases where appellate courts in New York’s First and Second Departments reduced the sentences imposed by trial judges. These appellate courts have jurisdiction over New York City and the surrounding counties, including Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk.
According to a study conducted by researchers, it was discovered that higher courts have reduced the total sentence length by more than 2,500 years. It is important to note that in New York, the appellate courts are only authorized to decrease the length of sentences, and are not permitted to extend them.
The report arrives at a time when New York judges are facing increased scrutiny due to bail reform and other recent changes in the state court system. There is a growing demand from criminal justice reform advocates for judges to reduce the number of individuals held in the city’s high-risk prisons before they are proven guilty. On the other hand, tough-on-crime conservatives often condemn judges for releasing individuals they consider to be dangerous. In fact, even the NYPD has recently intensified its social media criticism towards members of the judiciary.
Lawmakers are currently contemplating a bill that would grant individuals facing sentences of ten years or more the opportunity to request a reduction in their prison term from a judge.
The report urges the state court system to release comprehensive data on sentencing by state judges, as well as annual reports on cases where higher courts deem the sentences to be excessive. Oded Oren, the Executive Director of Scrutinize, expressed his optimism that these findings will enhance public awareness of sentencing practices in New York and enable voters to make well-informed choices when selecting or appointing judges.
According to the speaker, judges are different from other public servants such as the governor or representatives in the Legislature because there is limited information available about the choices and outcomes they make. The goal is to provide the public with as much information as possible.
The request for comment made to the state Office of Court Administration went unanswered.
In the state of New York, it is possible for higher courts to reduce sentences that are considered “unduly harsh or severe” as imposed by lower court justices. However, it is important to note that such instances are quite rare. A comprehensive study conducted by researchers discovered that out of the thousands of felony convictions that defendants appealed between 2007 and 2023, only 313 rulings in the First and Second Departments resulted in the reduction of lengthy sentences.
According to the report, retired Justice Edward McLaughlin, who presided over cases in Manhattan, was responsible for imposing 20 of the sentences that were later reduced. Similarly, Justice Vincent Del Giudice, who presides in Brooklyn Supreme Court, imposed 19 of these sentences.
McLaughlin was unavailable for comment at the time. Del Giudice did not respond to a comment request.
According to the study, the appellate courts have reduced the sentences of those 39 individuals by almost 685 years. The media often depicts both judges as strict and known for imposing lengthy sentences. After retiring, McLaughlin was reported by the Daily News to have handled numerous significant cases, including gang takedowns. Del Giudice, on the other hand, currently presides over mostly homicide cases, as stated by the Brooklyn district attorney’s office.
According to the report by Scrutinize, their analysis revealed that 65 lower court judges made multiple sentencing errors that were later corrected by higher appellate courts. Surprisingly, a dozen judges even imposed five or more sentences that were subsequently shortened by higher courts, resulting in a total reduction of 1,246 years.
According to Oren, a former public defender, state court judges hold significant power in determining the outcomes of the criminal cases they preside over. However, there is a lack of accountability for their rulings.
“It’s incredibly challenging to decipher the proceedings and rulings made by judges, as they make numerous decisions that are conveyed either orally or through legal documents,” he acknowledged. “Understanding the exact nature of their actions and the outcomes can be quite perplexing.”
The report highlights the case of one individual who was convicted of manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon in Nassau County in 2015 and sentenced to 35 years in prison, which was even more than the prosecutors had recommended. Two years later, an appeals court reduced his sentence by ten years, concluding that the original term was “excessive.”
In felony cases, New York courts must impose sentences that fall midway between the minimum and maximum specified by state law. New York courtNew York courts are also required to take into account various factors, including the existence of prior convictions for the same crime. Beyond those boundaries, judges have the authority to choose how long someone’s prison sentence should be.
