Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Carthon

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided June 23, 2016Published

1ConcurrenceWeston, J.

While I agree with the majority opinion, I write separately to discuss what has become a disturbing trend among prosecutors to announce their readiness with no real intent to proceed.

Unlike some other states’ speedy trial statutes, which prescribe a time within which a defendant must be brought to trial, New York’s speedy trial statute sets forth a time within which the People must be “ready” for trial (see Daniel Hamburg, Note, A Broken Clock: Fixing New York’s Speedy Trial Statute, 48 Colum JL & Soc Probs 223, 253 [2015]). A statement of readiness, by itself, is sufficient to satisfy this…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. EnglandNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. People v. StirrupNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. People v. SibbliesNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. People v. ColeNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API