According to a recent data analysis shared with Gothamist, a number of judges in New York City and neighboring counties have consistently handed down lengthy criminal sentences, only for higher courts to later reduce them by a total of over 1,200 years.
A retired judge in Manhattan and another judge currently serving in Brooklyn handed down a total of 39 sentences, which were later reduced by hundreds of years.
The organization Scrutinize, along with NYU’s Center on Race, Inequality and the Law, conducted an analysis of more than 300 appellate decisions made between 2007 and 2023. These decisions involved the reduction of trial judges’ sentences by the appellate courts in New York’s First and Second Departments. These departments oversee cases in New York City and its surrounding counties, including Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk.
According to the study, researchers discovered that hundreds of sentences were reduced by over 2,500 years by higher courts. It is important to note that under state law in New York, appellate courts are only allowed to decrease sentences and are not permitted to extend them.
Amidst the backdrop of bail reform and recent changes to the state court system, New York judges are currently under increased scrutiny. Advocates for criminal justice reform are urging judges to reduce the number of pretrial detainees in the city’s perilous jails, while those who support a tough-on-crime approach often criticize judges for releasing individuals they believe to be dangerous. In fact, even the NYPD has taken to social media to express its growing criticism towards members of the judiciary.
Lawmakers in the state are currently discussing a bill that would grant individuals facing sentences of ten years or more the opportunity to request a reduction in their time behind bars from a judge.
The report urges the state court system to release comprehensive sentencing data for state judges and issue annual reports on sentences that higher courts later deem excessive. Oded Oren, the Executive Director of Scrutinize, expressed his optimism that these findings will enhance New Yorkers’ comprehension of sentencing practices and empower them to make well-informed choices when selecting or appointing judges.
“We have a lot less information about what choices and outcomes these judges are driving, unlike other public servants such as the governor or our representatives in the Legislature,” he noted. “Our aim is to provide the public with as much information as possible.”
The state Office of Court Administration has not provided a comment in response to the request.
New York law permits higher courts to reduce sentences that are deemed “unduly harsh or severe” as imposed by lower court justices, although such occurrences are infrequent. A study revealed that out of the numerous felony convictions appealed between 2007 and 2023, researchers identified 313 cases in the First and Second Departments where lengthy sentences were shortened.
According to Oren, the report focused solely on decisions made by the Appellate Division, New York’s mid-level appeals court. He mentioned that the higher-level state Court of Appeals typically does not have the authority to reduce sentences or review Appellate Division decisions for being excessive.
According to the report, Justice Edward McLaughlin, who presided over cases in Manhattan, imposed 20 of the later-reduced sentences. Similarly, Justice Vincent Del Giudice, who presides in Brooklyn Supreme Court, imposed 19 of them.
McLaughlin was unavailable for immediate comment, while Del Giudice did not respond to a comment request.
According to the study, the appellate courts reduced the sentences of those 39 cases by nearly 685 years. The media has depicted both judges as being strict and known for imposing lengthy sentences. After McLaughlin retired, the Daily News reported that he had handled numerous serious cases, including gang takedowns. Del Giudice currently focuses primarily on homicide cases, as stated by the Brooklyn district attorney’s office.
According to Scrutinize’s analysis, 65 lower court judges have been found to have given multiple sentences that were later deemed too long by appellate courts. The report reveals that a dozen judges even imposed five or more sentences that were subsequently shortened by higher courts, resulting in a significant reduction of 1,246 years overall.
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.
According to the speaker, judges make numerous decisions in their line of work, all of which are communicated either orally or in written legal documents. This makes it challenging to keep track of and fully understand the ongoing processes and the outcome of these decisions.
In one instance mentioned in the report, a man in Nassau County was given a 35-year sentence, which was even longer than what prosecutors had suggested, for his conviction on charges of manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon in 2015. However, two years later, an appeals court deemed the initial sentence to be “excessive” and reduced it by 10 years.
In felony cases, judges in New York must adhere to the sentencing guidelines set forth in state law. These guidelines determine the range of possible sentences, with a minimum and maximum limit. Additionally, judges are required to consider factors such as prior convictions when determining the appropriate sentence. However, within these boundaries, judges have the authority to exercise discretion and determine the specific length of someone’s prison term.
