While Gone from the Headlines, New York Still Needs to Address Discovery Reform
By Michael Rempel, Director, Data Collaborative for Justice; Bryn Hill, Senior Research Associate, CUNY ISLG; Jennifer Ferone, Deputy Research Director, CUNY ISLG; and Krystal Rodriguez, Policy Director, Data Collaborative for Justice
Amid mixed results to date, policymakers can insist on better implementation of New York’s discovery reform, provide prosecutors with whatever tools they need, and steadfastly avoid sacrificing the due process rights of people facing charges. This collaboration between two of CUNY’s preeminent research organizations presents the data and analysis that can get us there.
While New York’s groundbreaking bail reform law has been a flashpoint of debate for years, it was instead the obscure topic of “discovery” that became the singular sticking point in last year’s New York State budget negotiations.
This year, Governor Kathy Hochul’s State of the State affirmed her commitment to public safety generally. But discovery, specifically, has faded from focus. The data says there’s still work to do, though that work has less to do with new legal fixes and more to do with strengthening implementation on the ground.
Since 2020, discovery reform imposed strict new requirements on prosecutors to share evidence with the defense on an accelerated timeline. Pleading for rollbacks, district attorneys claimed the reform led to a surge in case dismissals due to prosecutors’ inability to turn over evidence as quickly as required. Public defenders disagreed. In May 2025, the governor and legislators put the issue to rest by landing on relatively modest changes that gave judges more discretion on whether a case should be dismissed.
If prosecutors are correct that discovery reform imposed massive new burdens, last year’s band aid approach left hanging the crucial task of alleviating those burdens, while preserving New Yorkers’ right to see the evidence against them without delay. This year, we can start getting it right.
Both of our organizations have spent years studying discovery reform from the city’s very own university system, CUNY. The Institute for State & Local Governance (ISLG) conducted a three-year study on how the reforms were put into practice, and the Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) examined the hard data. Three themes stand out. The first starts with grounding ourselves in why discovery matters, the original purpose of reform: creating a just system that aligns with our values.
Remember that Discovery Reform is about Fundamental Fairness
The Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibit depriving people of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The crux of due process is establishing procedural guardrails that are capable of producing just, fair, and consistent outcomes.
In its most straightforward form, discovery is about the sharing of evidence between litigating parties—in a criminal case, this means between the prosecutor and defense attorney. The concerns around discovery, at their core, are about basic intra-agency communication and the timeliness and competent execution of the administrative tasks of sharing evidence. Though these activities may seem mundane, they are vital components that can make all the difference between a fair and just criminal process or a roughshod and arbitrary one.
Prior to New York’s reforms, defense attorneys frequently received discovery on the night before a trial, which many would consider to be antithetical to fair practice. Additionally, with over 99 percent of statewide convictions decided through plea agreements in lieu of a full trial, prosecutor delays in sharing evidence created a significant disadvantage for defense attorneys who had to advise their clients during plea negotiations without knowing the strength of the evidence against them or, in some cases, the existence of evidence that creates reasonable doubt or supports their innocence. In short, withholding or delaying discovery compromises the accused individual’s speedy trial rights and postpones closure for victims. For those awaiting trial in jail, this means unnecessary and excessive incarceration.
ISLG’s research found that all parties, prosecutors included, agreed discovery reform was necessary to create a fairer and more just process. This is a terrific starting point for collaborative efforts to unsparingly identify and fix the problems.
ISLG’s research found that all parties, prosecutors included, agreed discovery reform was necessary to create a fairer and more just process. This is a terrific starting point for collaborative efforts to unsparingly identify and fix the problems.
Among discovery reform’s many clear requirements, prosecutors must share their evidence within 50 days for people detained before trial and 65 days for people released.1 Even after this, the State’s speedy trial laws afford additional time before judges can dismiss cases: at least 90 days after arraignment for most misdemeanors and 6 months for felonies. Thus, in a felony case, prosecutors must be nearly four months late in complying with the discovery timeline before a judge can entertain a dismissal motion.
Confront the Reality of Poor Implementation in New York City, Mixed Elsewhere
The second theme we found is that implementation in New York City, especially, must improve.
First, DCJ found that dismissals tied to the State’s speedy trial laws spiked sharply in New York City—but not elsewhere.
The largest effects involve misdemeanors. From 2019 to 2024, speedy trial dismissals of misdemeanors ballooned from 9 percent to 48 percent in the city, changed modestly from 1 percent to 5 percent in the suburbs, and barely budged upstate (with a small increase from 2 percent to 4 percent disappearing if discounting the outlier counties of Monroe and Broome). For the most serious indicted felony cases, speedy trial dismissals remained consistently under 1 percent in all years and regions.
Second, especially in New York City, DCJ found that prosecutors are rarely meeting the reform’s timelines.
New York City district attorneys met their final deadlines in under 17 percent of felony indictments in 2024, with downstate suburban DAs complying in no more than 25 percent of these felony cases and no more than half of misdemeanors. Compliance by different upstate DAs ranged widely, though on average they outperformed downstate.
To be clear, although the noncompliance rates of many DA’s offices are quite high, dismissals are not the automatic result. As indicated above, the “speedy trial” timelines allow significantly more time (90 days for most misdemeanors and 6 months for felonies) than the discovery timelines (up to 65 days for detained and 50 days for released cases). In addition, many cases are resolved through pleas or other resolutions that are acceptable to all parties before discovery is fully turned over. Finally, even should a case’s speedy trial clock expire, the defense would generally have to make a motion for dismissal that would require adjudication. In short, the legal process includes further protection for all sides.
Third, ISLG identified specific reasons why prosecutors believe discovery compliance is difficult.
Prosecutors noted that they themselves don’t possess all the evidence, yet the law requires them to gather a long list of discoverable materials (some easier to locate than others) within a short timeline—including materials possessed by law enforcement and other agencies lacking necessary infrastructure to share information quickly. Though some DA’s offices reported hiring specialized staff whose sole responsibility was to manage discovery workloads within their offices, the responsibility in most offices fell on already overworked attorneys who prosecutors claimed were now spending more time “chasing paper” instead of preparing cases. Inadequate technology was another barrier: Most DA’s offices needed to implement an electronic system to manage and disseminate discovery. The reforms only gave them eight months to build these systems, with little to no additional funding. Of course, prosecutors have now had over six years, making it unclear if inadequate technology remains a chief concern.
Give Prosecutors What They Need Without Weakening Due Process
Our third theme is that agencies and policymakers need to come together to identify and provide prosecutors with the resources they need to better meet the statutory discovery timelines.
Here are five initial steps that could put New York on a pathway toward real solutions.
First, survey prosecutors and defense attorneys across the State.
Policymakers desperately need systematic information, and surveys with a mix of Likert scale and open-ended question items offer a relatively low cost means of gaining insight into the biggest challenges. Insights could also highlight the largest “bang for the buck” ideas in reducing speedy trial dismissals, improving prosecutors’ capacity to meet discovery reform’s timelines, and identifying which types of evidence are the most challenging to collect and share swiftly.
Second, focus on downstate.
Given what the data tells us, it makes sense to devote intensive attention to New York City, downstate suburbs of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland, and outlier counties like Monroe and Broome whose elevated speedy trial dismissal rates look more like New York City than upstate.
Third, prioritize swift evidence sharing between law enforcement and prosecutors.
In New York City, DA’s have often said that discovery delays begin with late transfer of evidence from the NYPD to prosecutors. Police may well face their own challenges resulting from discovery reform, but whether it is matter of giving the NYPD more dedicated resources to support evidence sharing, more technology solutions, or simply better interagency coordination, a good start would be the NYPD commissioner and other partners prioritizing the agency’s critical role in reform. In counties where the process is going well, perhaps other police departments can offer lessons on what is working.
Fourth, district attorneys and defense agency leadership should make specific asks for resources, procedures, or other implementation fixes that don’t include new legislation.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with amending legislation when truly necessary, but one must wonder if the great effort spent tweaking discovery reform in prior years (or opposing such tweaks) would have been better spent determining how due process can be fulfilled by finally achieving better compliance. In this regard, Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Governor Kathy Hochul can continue their good working relationship by coming together to insist on a two-way street: In exchange for helping prosecutors and defense attorneys, all parties should act to fulfill their obligations as spelled out in the laws we have and be open-minded on how they can do so. If after robust efforts, further small legislative fixes are indicated, they should be implemented, and we’ll know before taking this step that we tried in earnest.
Fifth, consider independent guidance in organizational management.
If identifying impactful fixes proves hard, city or state governments could offer local law enforcement or district attorneys’ offices struggling with compliance the necessary funding to hire independent consultants, who might be able to suggest strategies for reorganizing bureaus and staff to streamline evidence collection and sharing in creative new ways.
The preceding five steps (and others) could build on efforts led by the state court administration to implement formal discovery schedules and case conferences that establish firm timeline expectations—alongside collaborative troubleshooting protocols—for attorneys handling felony cases in New York City. Looking ahead, with the city faced with far greater underperformance than the rest of the State, there will be a timely opportunity for additional, concerted progress progress under Mayor Mamdani.
New York City and State are facing ever-renewed focus on a national stage. Safety and due process are critical issues for its communities. Strengthened by the data and knowledge gleaned from years of study, we’re primed to take what we know to make our systems truly work.
Strengthened by the data and knowledge gleaned from years of study, we’re primed to take what we know to make our systems truly work.
The caps are actually 20 and 35 days respectively, though a 30-day extension is permissible on reasonable grounds.
Photo by Richard Hedrick on Unsplash