It seems like it’s been forever since I’ve been down to criminal court at 100 Centre Street. There isn’t much reason for me to be here, as my days of representing defendants in misdemeanor state court cases is behind me. But I was retained to go to Part F today, and so to Part F I went. What a blast from the past!
For those who haven’t had the pleasure, New York calls it’s courtrooms “Part” something, usually a number. I’m sure there’s a rich and amusing history to explain the use of the word “Part” when referring to a courtroom, but I have no idea what it is. It’s just one of those local quirks that one gets used to.
Part F is the pre-indictment felony part, meaning that this is where cases go that are initially charged as a felony but have yet to be indicted. Once indicted, they go to Supreme Court. Until then, they sit in Part F or Part N, if a narcotics case. Lawyers walk in and yell out names of the people they are there to represent and whom they’ve never before met.
It’s a strange and wonderful place, with a very full docket and lawyers walking in and out all morning. If you don’t get your name on the list early, you can spend all day sitting there waiting for your case to be called. The good news is that you get to see plenty of people while sitting there. The bad news is that most are painfully young.
But what makes Part F special is the proliferation of “one time only” offers. As you step into the well, a very young official person reads the words on a note offering a “one time only” offer of a plea to (insert various penal law numbers here), meaning that the defendant can take it right there and then or suffer the threat of INDICTMENT. It comes in all caps when spoken as well, as the young assistant assumes an ominous tone that if you eschew his kind offer, you will pay.
I had forgotten how this game was played in Part F, the fear that flowed through lawyer and client when they were told to take it or be INDICTED (shudder). No time to talk, to think, to consider, to discuss. This was noblesse oblige at its finest, the Executive deigning to give the downtrodden one chance at a break. How kind of them.
I stifled a laugh when it was my turn. I was just so nostalgically amused by it all. I politely told the court how much I appreciated the prosecution’s very kind offer, but I was afraid that it would be impossible for me to accept it as I have not had an opportunity to discuss the offer with my client, and I would never accept a plea without my client being fully informed. The assistant reacted by telling me that they would keep the offer open, provided that I waive speedy trial.
As warm as his accommodation made me feel, I was still inclined to pass. I told the court that I couldn’t possibly waive speedy trial, that being a valuable constitutional right and my not having the slightest clue if my client had any interest whatsoever in any offer under the sun. To waive a valuable right without good reason would be an offense to our founding fathers, and I would never want to offend them. Not even when their dead. It would be wrong.
The judge adjourned the case for “grand jury action.” The prosecutor asked if I wanted to provide cross grand jury notice. I just smiled. He didn’t know what to make of my smile. I hope he thinks I’m just a friendly sort of fellow.
And so the case was adjourned. The ADA was nonplussed, moving swiftly to the next case and the next note. And I thought about the old days, when “justice” was routinely done in less than 30 seconds by lawyers who called out the names to find out whether they had showed up that day in Part F, so they can plead them out.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmm. Great story. I don’t know what to make of your smile either, although we all know you’re not that friendly, not to prosecutors.
I’m missing some of the context here. Is there any real threat here? I’ve had salesmen give me that “act now because these deals won’t last” pitch and I always ignore it because it’s never for real. Is it any different in Part F? Or is it all just a scam?
There is always a threat that a defendant can be indicted and convicted, despite an earlier plea offer to a misdemeanor. The problem isn’t that the threat isn’t real, but being forced to make a snap decision to take a plea upon pain of indictment.
I guess I’m trying to understand why the threat is real. Say your client is offered a plea to misdemeanor X, you decline, then you talk to your client and he likes the offer, so you go back to the prosecutor that afternoon and tell him you’ll take the deal. (All I know about New York criminal law is what I learned from Raising the Bar.) Why wouldn’t he accept the deal? What’s different for him just a few hours later that makes the deal no good? Is it just that if he accepted the deal he’d have less leverage next time he’s in Part F?
This is an area where it’s more helpful to practice. The court appearance lasts for 2 minutes. Then the case is adjourned to another day. That’s the end of it for that day. The client goes home. The lawyer goes to another case. The assistant assigned to the case can be anywhere (except sitting in his office taking phone calls). And telling him that you’ll take the deal means nothing since the point is to take the deal, not to talk about taking the deal. What really happens has little to do with watching lawyer shows on TV.
Huh…I guess this was all just a little too inside for me. Nevermind. I seem to be having one of those days…
Yeah, this probably wasn’t a good one to start asking about. This was a just a day in the life type thing.
Another fun corollary to the one time only offer is the offer that is withdrawn if you ask for discovery. I was big on both of these when I was a young prosecutor until a defense lawyer I respected simply explained, I just want the discovery so I can properly advise my client what he should do. And then I started to realize that a lot of my office’s practices were designed to move things quickly at the expense of informed pleas and that we were doing things very, very, backwards.
Exactly. And if you thought the practice by prosecutors was improper or coercive, consider how many defense lawyers took the plea, whether standing in the well without the defendant’s actual understanding or appreciation of what they were doing, or before knowing whether or not there was actually a case against their clients by awaiting discovery.
If the process was rational, one time only or conditional orders would never be permitted or desired by either side. But prosecutors can use them to clear their cases, and defense lawyer can use them to do the same, as long as the fee has been paid. If a defendant is not so horrible that he deserves a decent offer, then that same offer should be available throughout the proceeding, not one time only. And if he is so horrible, then the offer should never be made and the case prosecuted to conclusion.
In a kangaroo court the verdict is known in advance. It seems to me that Part K would be a better name than Part F.