Judges’ Unpublished Decisions Debunk the Myths About Discovery Reform

New York’s 2020 discovery reform law was designed to make the criminal legal system fairer by ensuring prosecutors disclose evidence to the defense in a timely manner. Critics of the law argue that it leads to case dismissals over minor technicalities or that defense attorneys exploit it to get cases thrown out. But what do judges actually say when they dismiss cases under this law?

The answer is largely hidden from the public. The vast majority—94% to 99.5%—of written judicial decisions in New York State remain unpublished. Without access to these decisions, public debate is too often shaped by selective narratives rather than the reality documented in court rulings.

What the Data Shows—and What It Doesn’t

Since mid-2022, we have reviewed nearly 300 unpublished judicial decisions from New York City that found a discovery violation under the new law. These are the very cases that opponents of discovery reform cite as evidence of its failure.

These decisions reveal that judges are dismissing cases because prosecutors regularly fail to meet basic evidentiary obligations, sometimes ignoring discovery requests for months or choosing to withhold evidence. They are not dismissed due to trivial errors or defense tactics.

However, it is important to acknowledge what this dataset cannot tell us. The decisions we reviewed are not a comprehensive sample of all discovery-related rulings. We do not know what other, unpublished decisions say because judges simply do not make them available. It is possible that other cases paint a different picture—but that picture remains hidden from public view.

What we do know is that in every decision we reviewed, judges document serious, repeated failures by prosecutors—not minor technicalities or procedural tricks by the defense. At a minimum, these rulings directly contradict the narrative that discovery reform itself is the problem.

See the Evidence for Yourself

Below, we provide direct quotes from judicial decisions explaining why cases were dismissed. These excerpts reveal consistent patterns of prosecutorial failure, contradicting claims that discovery reform is to blame.

To help readers understand key terms used in these decisions, we’ve also included a brief guide to important legal concepts like Certificates of Compliance (COC) and due diligence requirements. For clarity and consistency, we have redacted references to specific evidence items (noted as “[evidence]”), removed names and dates, and omitted citations.

By making these judicial findings publicly accessible, we aim to replace speculation with facts—and ensure that debates over discovery reform are driven by what judges actually say, rather than what critics claim.