|
2025 NYSDA Membership Renewal
The 2025 NYSDA membership year starts tomorrow! We want to take this opportunity to thank you for your support in 2024. Your commitment to NYSDA and its mission means so much to us, and we look forward to having you with us again in 2025.
Renewing your membership is simple and convenient. Here’s how:
-
Online: Log in to your NYSDA account to renew online.
-
By Form: Complete the membership renewal form and email it to HRapp@nysda.org or mail it to our office with a check payment.
-
By Phone: Call our office to renew your membership over the phone.
If you have any questions or need assistance with your renewal or accessing your online account, please contact Heather Rapp, Program Assistant, at HRapp@nysda.org or (518) 465-3524 ext. 13.
We wish all of you a happy and healthy New Year! Thank you for being part of our Association—we look forward to working together in the year ahead!
Erlinger’s Impact Begins to Be Felt
As discussed in the August 22, 2024 edition of News Picks, this summer the Supreme Court in Erlinger v United States issued a decision on the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) that has major implications for New York’s predicate sentencing laws.
Erlinger holds that a unanimous jury must make a determination beyond a reasonable doubt that a person’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions under the ACCA. So, any factual determination that increases a sentencing range must be made by a jury under a reasonable doubt standard, not a judge under preponderance of the evidence.
Six months on from the decision, we’re beginning to get a sense of the impact and implementation of Erlinger across the state. In the New York Law Journal, Barry Kamins discusses a split among trial courts that “has created an uncertainty as to Erlinger’s impact and whether it might result in other consequences for defendants.” Two New York County trial courts have held that "the facts necessary to apply the tolling provisions within certain predicate felony statutes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury.” See People v Lopez, 2024 NY Slip Op 24207 (7/26/2024); People v Banks, 2024 NY Slip Op 24241 (9/6/2024). However, one Bronx County trial court, in an unreported decision, “chose to limit Erlinger to its facts and narrow holding, finding that tolling calculations can continue to be made by a court and not a jury.” But all three courts agreed that ultimately, a legislative response was going to be necessary to fully contend with Erlinger’s implications.
Third Department Reverses and Grants Sentencing Under DVSJA
The Third Department, reversed a trial court denial of a DVJSA Penal Law 60.12 guideline sentence and granted the application in People v Ava OO, 2024 NY Slip Op 06245 (12/12/2024). The applicant had entered a plea of guilty to second-degree robbery, in full satisfaction of other matters, pursuant to a negotiated plea for a sentence of no less than five years and no more than seven as a first felony offender. Prior to sentencing, an application for a DVJSA guideline sentence was made supported by evidence of significant abuse inflicted by the co-defendant, the applicant’s romantic partner. The trial court found that the applicant was an abused person under the statute but that the abuse was not a significant contributing factor to her illegal conduct. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the application, first finding the waiver of appeal invalid as overbroad, and then determining that the abusive relationship, viewed through the prism of the ameliorative intent of the DVSJA, meant her conduct should not be viewed in the vacuum of the alleged crime but that the court "should consider the cumulative effect of the abuse together with the events immediately surrounding the crime, paying particular attention to the circumstances under which the defendant was living and adopting a full picture approach in its review," citing People v Wendy B.-S., 229 AD3d 1317 (4th Dept 2024). A notable aspect of the decision in Ava OO. was the court’s focus on the intensive abuse that “encompassed all the hallmarks of sex trafficking,” based on evidence of compelled prostitution. The court wrote, “The climate of fear and acquiescence imposed by the codefendant manifested on the day of the crime through acts of sex trafficking, physical abuse and threats to her life,” all of which established by a preponderance of the evidence that the abuse was a significant contributing factor to her criminal behavior.
In reaching its conclusions, the Third Department considered a number of secondary sources that may be of interest to defenders, including, the NY City Bar Association Report on Legislation by the Criminal Justice Operations Committee, Domestic Violence Committee and Pro Bono and Legal Services Committee (June 1, 2013); Suzannah Phillips et al., Clearing the Slate: Seeking Effective Remedies for Criminalized Trafficking Victims, CUNY School of Law Int'l Women's Human Rights Clinic (2014); and Alaina Richert, Failed Interventions: Domestic Violence, Human Trafficking, and the Criminalization of Survival, 120 Mich L Rev 315, 318-319 (2021).
Although the decision in Ava OO. does not include any reference to specific relief requested for sex trafficking, defenders should be mindful that CPL 440.10(1)(i) authorizes post-conviction relief for individuals convicted of crimes where evidence shows that the criminal conduct underlying a conviction arose from sex trafficking.
Attorneys are reminded that information and resources are available on NYSDA’s DVSJA Resources webpage, and defenders seeking particular assistance or resources are encouraged to reach out to NYSDA’s DVSJA Attorney Support Project by contacting Senior Staff Attorney Stephanie Batcheller at SJBatcheller@nysda.org or (518) 465-3524 x 41.
“Melanie’s Law” Created a New Category of People Who Can Obtain an Order of Protection
Once again, the category of individuals who can obtain an order of protection by filing a family offense petition has been expanded. On Nov. 25, 2024, Governor Hochul signed “Melanie’s Law” (Chapter 541 of the Laws of 2024), amending Family Court Act 812 and Criminal Procedure Law 530.11. The changes expand the meaning of “members of the same family or household” to include “persons who are related by consanguinity or affinity to parties who are or have been in an intimate relationship.” According to the legislative justification, the amendment was designed to close an “oversight” in the law that prevented “close family members of those receiving a protective order from being protected themselves.” Practice note: even though an adult family or household member of a named victim can file for their own order of protection against the alleged abuser, they still need to allege and prove that they themselves are the victim of a family offense. Defenders with questions related to this or any other area of family court-mandated representation should email our Family Court Staff Attorney, Kim Bode at kbode@nysda.org.
Order of Grandparent Visitation Lacked a Sound and Substantial Basis in the Record
In Matter of Theresa S. v. Christopher H. (2024 NY Slip Op 06050 [12/4/2024]), the Second Department reversed an order of grandparent visitation, and in doing so laid out a helpful tutorial for family defenders on the legal standard required to award grandparents visitation without the consent of the parent(s). “Domestic Relations Law § 72 ‘does not create an absolute or automatic right of visitation. Instead, the statute provides a procedural mechanism for grandparents to acquire standing to seek visitation with a minor grandchild’ [citations omitted]. Thus, ‘when grandparents seek visitation under section 72(1), the court must undertake a two-part inquiry. First, the court must find standing based on death or equitable circumstances; and if the court concludes that the grandparents have established the right to be heard, then it must determine if visitation is in the best interest of the grandchild’ [citations omitted].” The court continued: “‘[T]he courts should not lightly intrude on the family relationship against a fit parent's wishes’ [citation omitted]. ‘Indeed, it is strongly presumed that a fit parent's decisions are in the child's best interests [citations omitted].”
In this case, the Appellate Division determined that the decision of the Suffolk County Family Court to order grandparent visitation lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. While the written decision did not contain any factual details to support the conclusion that visitation was not in the best interest of the children, in oral arguments, the attorney for the youngest child revealed both physical and verbal altercations between the parents and grandmother in front of the children, some of which resulted in police intervention. The AFC also indicated that the grandmother was not exercising her visitation regularly, and when visitation did take place it confused the youngest child. Oral arguments can be found here (starting at 9:00).
Our Family Defense Resources page has a sample motion to dismiss a petition for grandparent visitation, for family defenders who believe they have grounds for dismissal.
People v Morales: OCME DNA Results “Potentially Compromised Until The Investigation Is Finalized and The Findings Are Reported”
Congratulations are due to our colleagues Paul Beyder and Hayley Farrell of The Legal Aid Society’s DNA Unit and Cassandra Charles of The Legal Aid Society’s Brooklyn Trial Office for their win in People v Morales! Previously, we reported in the December 10th edition of News Picks on DNA cross-contamination between cases at the OCME’s Forensic Biology Unit. The prosecution moved to compel an oral swab of Mr. Morales for DNA testing to compare those results to a profile generated from DNA obtained from a firearm. Armed with the knowledge that contamination was rampant in the Forensic Biology Unit of the OCME and the fact that the Root Cause Analysis had not yet been completed at the time of motion, the defense team argued that the prosecution failed to satisfy the Abe A. prong requiring a “‘clear indication’ that relevant material is likely to be found’ … (Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d 288, 291 [1982]; CPL § 245.40[1][e]).” The court was unpersuaded by the prosecution’s anemic one-page letter in response, which merely concluded that the analyst’s “lab work did not affect the results in this case” without any foundation to that statement’s veracity. Because the lab and thus prosecution were unable to confirm or deny whether Mr. Morales’ case had been affected by the contamination events, the Kings County Supreme Court held the request for the swab in abeyance, finding “any recent analyses from the OCME must be deemed potentially compromised until the investigation is finalized and the findings are reported.” People v Morales, 2024 NY Slip Op 24307 (Supreme Ct, Kings Co 12/4/2024).
NYSBA Ethics Opinion Allows Public Defender Offices to Administer GoFundMe Pages for Clients
The New York State Bar Association issued an ethics opinion finding that “a non-profit criminal defense organization may set up and administer GoFundMe pages for the benefit of indigent current clients.” The caveat being that the financial assistance is “rendered as gifts, not loans” and that it is not promised “prior to retention or as an inducement to continue the lawyer-client relationship.”
The opinion is based on Rule 1.8(e)(4) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, added in June of 2020. That rule specifically allows any lawyer providing legal services without fee, or a not-for-profit legal services or public interest organization, to “provide financial assistance to indigent clients.” Again, 1.8(e)(4)’s caveat is that the financial assistance must come in the form of a gift - which is how GoFundMe is structured - as opposed to a loan.
December 2024 WNYRIAC Newsletter Highlights Mitigation
The latest issue of the Western New York Regional Immigration Center (WNYRIAC) provides a summary of training held on November 1st, “Traumatic Stress in Migrant Populations: Best Practices for Mitigation.” Points covered ranged from “Identifying Noncitizens” and “Trauma and Stressors Faced by Migrants” to “Storytelling & visual aids for Effective Mitigation” and “Interview techniques.” With a focus on “involving social workers and mitigation specialists to improve holistic representation for noncitizen clients,” the session (and the recap) offered practical guidance for professionals and showed the need for “an understanding of clients’ home countries and prior experiences with authority ….”
The newsletter also includes an item about a federal court case out of Ohio involving the Second Amendment. The federal district court judge denied a motion to dismiss federal firearms charges, based on the Second Amendment, due to the defendant’s immigration status. As reported in an ABC6OnYourSide.com post on November 22nd, the court said, “‘disarming unlawful immigrants … who have not sworn allegiance to the United States comports with the Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulations... The swearing of an oath of allegiance occurs through the naturalization process, not through his asylum application or his years of living in the United States.’" The post includes a link to the decision, U.S. v Serrano-Restrepo.
Judges Grapple With AI in Expert Testimony – Weber and Its Lessons
AI continues to invade many aspects of our practice. Chatbot hallucinations, particularly, have injected nonexistent case citations into court filings. In the most basic sense, AI chatbots like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot do not determine truth from falsehood. When generating a response based on user input, the chatbot will, by design, output text that seems correct. The AI isn’t necessarily searching for accurate information, computing mathematical calculations given in the prompt, or performing an in-depth analysis on a legal question. Much like how an iPhone will predict which word will come next in your text, these bots are predicting what an answer to the suggested prompt might seem like.
A Saratoga County Surrogate’s Court ran into this precise problem in October. In Matter of Weber as Trustee of Michael S. Weber Trust (2024 NY Slip Op 24258 [10/10/2024]), the Objectant’s expert was tasked with calculating lost profits on a piece of property; he testified that he used an AI chatbot, Microsoft Copilot, to cross-check his calculations. The expert could not explain the prompt he entered, what the training data for Copilot looks like, or “any details about how Copilot works or how it arrives at a given output.”
The judge, having “no objective understanding as to how Copilot works,” attempted to replicate the expert’s calculations using Microsoft Copilot on his own work computer. When the judge provided the same valuation query to Copilot three times, he received three different answers, with over a $2,700 spread.
Copilot was not able to produce a consistent answer because it is not designed to be a calculator. It is not looking up the average returns on a Vanguard Balanced Index Fund during that time period, it is generating an answer that seems like an answer that would follow such a question.
As much as Weber is a lesson in the caution we should use in integrating AI tools into our workflow, it also reveals the importance of preparation and clarity in expert examination. If a judge is confused by an expert’s method or opinion, that judge may just decide to do their own research instead of relying on counsel’s representations. In Weber, the judge was both confused and intrigued by the expert’s use of Copilot and counsel’s apparent refusal to clarify any details about the chatbot. Given how accessible Copilot is to anyone with a Microsoft Windows system, the judge was able to interrogate Copilot on its reliability and accuracy:
“Interestingly, when asked the following question: ‘are you accurate’, Copilot generated the following answer: ‘I aim to be accurate within the data I've been trained on and the information I can find for you. That said, my accuracy is only as good as my sources so for critical matters, it's always wise to verify.’
….
It would seem that even Copilot itself self-checks and relies on human oversight and analysis. It is clear from these responses that the developers of the Copilot program recognize the need for its supervision by a trained human operator to verify the accuracy of the submitted information as well as the output.”
Weber teaches us three lessons. The first is that AI chatbots are not search engines or calculators. When we attempt to use them as such, we can expect inaccurate results. Second, if an expert witness mentions a method or technique, in-depth questioning about that technique is essential lest a judge draw their own conclusions. If a judge feels the need to Google your expert’s field after a hearing is concluded, the expert’s testimony has failed to stand on its own feet. Third, AI chatbots have no right to remain silent under accusatory questioning and will happily undermine your expert’s credibility if asked to.
Dutchess County Welcomes Real Time Crime Center, Bids Farewell to Privacy
The Dutchess County Legislature approved $200,000 as initial funds to launch a Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) by the end of the year. This RTCC and others like it across the state and country “merge data from live video, cameras, license plate readers, body cameras worn by law enforcement, audio detection and other tools into a single cloud-based operational view.” Staff of this new RTCC will be composed of personnel from the Dutchess County Sheriff’s Office Special Operation Bureau, a Crime Analyst from the DA’s Office, and others from area law enforcement agencies like the New York State Police. While implemented under the guise of enhancing public safety, in operation, RTCCs and similar surveillance and predictive policing tools have not been shown to reduce crime, but have been shown to be biased, store sensitive information, generate false positive investigative leads, result in wrongful arrests, and violate privacy broadly.
For more information about surveillance technology in New York, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has compiled an Atlas of Surveillance, linked here. Additional helpful resources include: EFF’s “Field Guide to Police Surveillance”, ACLU’s Community Control Over Police Surveillance page, and ACLU’s Resource Library.
ILS Announces RFP for Fourth Upstate Model Family Representation Office
The New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services (ILS) announced the availability of funds for an additional family representation “model office” in counties outside of NYC to provide comprehensive representation to parents at every stage of a family regulation case. “In accordance with the ILS Parental Representation Standards, the defining feature of the Model Office will be client-centered and interdisciplinary representation that addresses both the legal and social service issues confronting parents impacted by the child welfare system at all critical stages of their interaction with the system, including the child welfare investigation stage. This ‘family defense’ model, in which attorneys, social workers, parent advocates, paralegals, investigators, and experts work as a team, is deemed a best practices approach .…” The maximum amount of the grant is $2,610,417 split up equally over three years. ILS currently funds two other model offices in the state, in Monroe and Westchester counties. Completed applications must be submitted to ILS by February 7th. For more information, click here.
Hearing on Diversity in Juries to be Held in Third Department on Jan. 30, 2025
The Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission announced, in its November 22nd e-newsletter, that a Public Jury Hearing will be held on Jan. 30, 2025, at the Appellate Division, Third Department, Robert Abrams Building for Law & Justice, Room 511, in Albany. Members of the public are invited to attend the hearing, scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. “This event will feature insights from legal professionals and local community members, focusing on the challenges and barriers to participation in our jury system,” the announcement says. In addition, “we will discuss recommendations aimed at ensuring our juries more accurately reflect the rich diversity of our state and local communities." A reply form can be found here. Attendance can be in person or virtually, and this option is offered: “I have previously served as a juror and would like to present testimony on my experience as a juror.”
An earlier hearing in the Fourth Department was described in the October 11th edition of News Picks.
LAC Announces White Paper About ATI and Reentry Programs—Needs and Solutions
The Legal Action Center (LAC) has announced release of a white paper by the NYS Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) and Reentry Coalition, "Unlocking Potential: The Role of Community-Based Alternatives in Strengthening Public Safety." The paper seeks to illuminate “specific service gaps and barriers to effective ATI and reentry provision, particularly in upstate and Western New York” and offer “recommendations on how best to fill those gaps and successfully scale programs statewide.” Based on data analysis, a survey, interviews, and five county-level roundtables, the paper sets out findings that will surprise few in the public defense community. These include the need for basic resources—housing, transportation, employment, mental health and substance use services—and problems including coordination of services, staffing issues, and funding.
The paper stresses the need to look beyond recidivism as the measure of ATI and reentry program success. Problems in providing services need to be addressed, and preventive strategies need to be enhanced to reduce the need for interventions. “Put simply, service providers will continue to be hampered and overwhelmed if the state fails to address structural inequalities in access to stable affordable housing, transportation, health care, as well as employment and educational opportunities.“ The paper, issued on the cusp of state budget season, includes a call for:
- Expanded funding for ATIs and reentry to match upstate need;
- Flexible funding to ensure maximum impact;
- Workforce expansion in related service fields via education, training, and licensure;
- Increased funding for peer training initiatives, reentry, and transitional housing;
- Increased units of supportive housing across rural and suburban areas; and
- State funding for ATI collaboration.
“For every dollar invested in ATIs, studies estimate between $3.46 and $5.54 in returns, including reduced criminal justice system costs and improved community health outcomes,” a co-author of the paper stated in the press release.
Daniel’s Law Task Force Report on Mental Health Crises Issued
In December, the Office of Mental Health released the Daniel’s Law Task Force‘s New York State Behavioral Health Crisis Response Report. The Task Force was legislatively created in 2023 in response to public outcry following the 2020 death of Daniel Prude in police custody in Rochester. The two overarching recommendations are for the State to “establish a defined response protocol for a behavioral health crisis” that includes a set of criteria and “establish a Behavioral Health Crisis Technical Assistance Center” that includes specified elements. According to a December 23rd article on SpectrumLocalNews.com, the first recommendation boils down to this: “when someone calls 911 or 988 about a mental health crisis or substance abuse issue … a team specifically trained in crisis services respond.“
PPG Releases Report, Announces Community Responders Demo Project
The Partnership for the Public Good (PPG) released a report in early November on the need to establish community responders as an alternative to police response to non-emergency calls in Buffalo. Spectrum News, discussing the report and the announcement that PPG is “looking to pilot a community responder program,“ pointed out that this makes PPG just the latest group in the state to do so according to a PPG spokesperson. One project, the article noted, is the “Albany County Crisis Officials Responding and Diverting, or ACCORD program, a partnership between the county executive, sheriff, Legislature and University at Albany.” The ACCORD pilot project launched in 2021 in western Albany County’s Hilltowns, an area with historically limited access to behavioral health services. A joint study by University at Albany’s Schools of Social Welfare and Public Health in 2022 reportedly “found that ACCORD is filling an important service gap by connecting people to services that they had not previously used.”
A School of Social Work official noted that “ACCORD can only be as effective as the community-based resources available to the clients it serves,” which of course is a major factor everywhere. Who responds to a 911 call, how the response unfolds, and where subjects of calls for intervention wind up can impact not only the individuals but also the various governmental and other entities that exist to take on a range of problems from mental health crises to lack of residences for those who are unhoused to drug overdoses—and the issues that defense lawyers face.
Federal Judiciary Upholds Ban on Cameras in Courts
The U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, in a near unanimous vote, as reported on Reuters, rejected a proposal to relax the longstanding ban on TV and audio broadcasts of federal criminal trials.
The Senior U.S. District Judge who chaired the subcommittee assessing the proposal cited concerns about the lack of empirical research into what effect allowing cameras into courtrooms has had on criminal proceedings, including concerns about protecting the privacy of witnesses and jurors, especially regarding the security of participants in cases involving violent crimes. He said carving an exception for certain cases, for example any trial of Donald Trump, that may draw greater interest raised fairness concerns.
A lone dissenter spoke favorably of his own experience as a trial judge who allowed a TV station to broadcast a high-profile trial, which, he opined, allowed members of the community to see with their own eyes what happened in court rather than relying on news reports. He supported giving more discretion to the judges to make decisions and design protective measures where needed.
The Subcommittee Chair’s concerns are important and valid. For decades, NYSDA has been at the forefront of upholding New York’s ban on audio-visual coverage of proceedings. See the 2012 Statement in Opposition to Audio-Visual Arraignments. While the federal judiciary’s committee expressed concern over a lack of empirical evidence, New York’s continued ban is grounded in years-long studies that revealed significant impact of broadcast coverage on the conduct of proceedings and participants. Added to the historical concerns of how broadcast coverage may impact decision making and witness comfort and authenticity are the emerging concerns about how audio-visual footage can be manipulated in ways that can distort the evidence and spread disinformation and misinformation.
To the extent that the Rules of the Chief Judge Part 29 and Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge Part 131 as restricted by Civil Rights Law 52 allow a level of discretion by judges in allowing cameras in courts, NYSDA has consistently objected to any permission granted without the express consent of the defense.
To read more about NYSDA’s position on cameras in court, click here to read NYSDA’s 2024 Memorandum in Opposition to Cameras in Court Bill A.712-B. To view a virtual discussion sponsored by the Fund for Modern Courts and the New York State Bar Association, “The Audio-Visual Coverage of Judicial Proceedings: Laws, Policy and Tech,” in which NYSDA Executive Director Susan C. Bryant participated, click here.
Recap of Resources for Defenders
Generous individuals and programs shared helpful resources with NYSDA throughout 2024. We in turn let members and other defenders know about these helpful materials. Information for criminal practitioners included:
-
Criminal Procedure Law Section 30.30 (1) Manual (Summer 2024 Edition) by Drew R. DuBrin, Special Assistant Public Defender, Appeals Bureau, Monroe County Public Defender’s Office (News Picks 7/31 and NYSDA’s Discovery Reform Implementation webpage).
-
Defending Against the New Scarlet Letter: A Defense Attorney’s Guide to SORA Proceedings, 2nd Edition, by Alan Rosenthal (News Picks 2/1 and Criminal Defense Resources webpage).
-
Guide to New York Evidence (NYS Unified Court System website, News Picks 2/1).
-
Criminal Jury Instructions 2d (NYS Unified Court System website News Picks 2/1).
-
Intake & Case Assessment for DVSJA Resentencing (Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act, News Picks 7/31).
-
CPL 245 “Discovery” – Issues and Advocacy, Sept. 2024 edition, The Legal Aid Society (News Picks 9/17 and NYSDA’s Discovery Reform Implementation webpage).
-
A Defense Attorney’s Guide: Representing Adolescents [JO, AO, YO, Retroactive YO, SORA], by Alan Rosenthal, prepared in cooperation with the Broome County Assigned Counsel Program (News Picks 10/11).
Publications from the Center for Appellate Litigation (CAL):
Information of interest to both criminal and family practitioners included:
NYSDA Family Defense Resources
NYSDA’s Family Defense Resource Page contains numerous resources available to family defenders. Thanks to the generosity of family defense offices and private attorneys from around the state, there is a Family Defense Motion page full of sample motions and discovery documents relevant to all areas of family court-mandated representation, including motions to dismiss, for contempt against DSS, to vacate; subpoenas; and other discovery documents. Additionally, family defenders will find links to recently enacted legislation, articles on systemic racism in the family regulation system, and resources for parents with disabilities, among other things. Family defenders are encouraged to visit the page for a full list of helpful information.
Some resources from prior years remain useful. For criminal practitioners, those include:
Immigrant Defense Project resources for defense counsel, including:
Association News
We’re Moving Our Albany Office
NYSDA’s Albany office is moving in mid-January 2025 to 40 Beaver Street, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12207. The rest of our contact information will remain the same. We will be timing the move to ensure the least possible disruption to our services. If you have any questions, please contact us at info@nysda.org.
NYSDA is Hiring!
The New York State Defenders Association (NYSDA) is seeking a Legal Director to lead and coordinate the Public Defense Backup Center’s legal program, which provides resources and direct defender support to public defense attorneys statewide. The Backup Center’s legal program is currently staffed with staff attorneys, Discovery and Forensic Support Unit attorneys, a training coordinator, and a legal assistant, and is anticipated to grow in the coming year. As a member of the leadership team, the Legal Director will collaborate with NYSDA’s other programs to ensure cohesive services that align with the organization’s mission and vision for client-centered high-quality representation throughout the state. For more information, click here for full job posting and instructions on how to apply.
NYSDA’s Training Schedule
In the final months of the year, NYSDA conducted an all-day Investigations Training in NYC at the Legal Aid Society’s new Training and Advocacy Center and launched webinars on Discovery from the Defense: Ethics and Key Questions, Mitigating Fines & Fees in Criminal Cases, and The A to Z of Article 6 Custody Relocation. We hope you join us for our upcoming trainings. Please note, our NYSDA training calendar gets updated periodically as programming gets added.
Free Family Defense Webinars
-
Friday, January 24, 2025, 1:00 – 2:30 pm, Venue and Jurisdictional Issues in Family Court Custody Cases. For more information and to register, click here.
-
Tuesday, February 11, 2025, Noon – 2:00 pm, Providing Effective Pre-Petition Representation in an Under-Resourced Family Defense Environment. For more information and to register, click here.
-
Thursday, March 6, 2025, 1:00 – 2:30 pm, Family Court Case Law Update. For more information and to register, click here.
-
Wednesday, March 19, 2025, 1:00 – 2:30 pm, Should My Client Testify? Negative Inferences & Other Considerations in Abuse & Neglect Cases. For more information and to register, click here.
SAVE THE DATE: NYSDA’s 58th Annual Meeting & Conference will be held at the Saratoga City Center and Saratoga Hilton located in Saratoga Springs from July 27 to 29, 2025. The conference will again feature training for criminal and family defenders and defense team members and various networking opportunities. Hotel reservation information and conference registration will be forthcoming.
|
