Matter of Katherine B. v. District Attorney of Westchester County, 87 N.Y.2d 78 (1995)
CPL 160.50 does not grant a former defendant an automatic and unlimited right to access all records in the District Attorney’s files pertaining to a criminal proceeding that terminated in their favor; access is limited to “official records and papers”.
Summary
Katherine B., after having an indictment against her dismissed, sought access to all records related to her arrest and prosecution held by the Westchester County District Attorney’s office, intending to use these files in a federal civil lawsuit. The Court of Appeals held that CPL 160.50 does not provide for unfettered access to all materials in the prosecutor’s files. The statute’s sealing provisions are balanced against legitimate law enforcement needs, and access is limited to “official records and papers”. The Court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the wholesale production of the District Attorney’s files and also improperly sought relief in the Criminal Term of the County Court.
Facts
Katherine B. was indicted by a Grand Jury in Westchester County for robbery, grand larceny, and assault. County Court dismissed the indictment due to insufficient evidence of accessorial liability and denied the People leave to re-present the case. Subsequently, Katherine B. commenced a civil action in Federal Court against the City of White Plains and its police department. During discovery, she subpoenaed the Westchester County District Attorney’s office for records related to her criminal prosecution. When the District Attorney refused, she moved in the Criminal Term of Westchester County Court for access to all records and papers pertaining to her arrest and prosecution, including Grand Jury minutes.
Procedural History
The County Court denied Katherine B.’s motion in its entirety. She then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding at the Appellate Division to compel the unsealing and production of the District Attorney’s files and to vacate the County Court order. The Appellate Division dismissed the proceeding, finding that Katherine B. failed to justify the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a former defendant in a criminal proceeding that terminated in their favor has a clear legal right under CPL 160.50 to obtain automatic access to all files relating to their arrest and prosecution from the District Attorney’s office through a CPLR article 78 proceeding for mandamus.
Holding
No, because CPL 160.50(1)(d) provides access only to “official records and papers” and does not grant a former defendant an automatic and unlimited right to access all materials in a prosecutor’s files. Moreover, the petitioner improperly sought this relief in the Criminal Term of County Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is a clear legal right to the relief sought. Katherine B. argued that CPL 160.50(1)(d) imposed a bright-line rule requiring the disclosure of everything in a prosecutor’s files. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the statute limits access to “official records and papers,” not “any and all records and papers, without limitation.” The Court noted the Legislature’s intent to balance the rights of a former defendant against the interests of law enforcement. The sealing requirement is designed to mitigate the adverse consequences of unsuccessful prosecutions. The Court distinguished between different types of records, noting that while some tape recordings might qualify as official records under certain circumstances, not all do. The court cited the governor’s approval memorandum: “This legislation is consistent with the presumption of innocence, which simply means that no individual should suffer adverse consequences merely on the basis of an accusation, unless the charges were ultimately sustained in a court of law.” The Court concluded that the Legislature did not intend to dispense with existing limitations on access to law enforcement records and that Katherine B. failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the records she sought. The court observed that the petitioner had foreclosed a direct appeal by bringing the motion in Criminal Term, instead of within a civil action.