From WXXI news.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Our connection this hour is made at an arraignment.

A person has been charged with a criminal offense, and they're going to see a judge.

But when and where and why?

Could the answer be different depending on whether you live in the suburbs or in the city?

Well, that will soon change in Monroe County.

This is not necessarily about bail reform.

You've heard a lot about that.

The changes we're talking about today would likely have happened independent of bail reform.

But certainly bail reform is highlighted.

Questions about whether the system as a whole is fair, whether it's working as intended.

Monroe County will launch its new centralized arraignment part at the end of next month.

County Executive Adam Bellow recently told journalists that the new plan is good for everyone, for defendants, for police, for everyone in the system.

Public defender Julie Ciancia told 13 WAM news that the new system will make sure everyone who is arrested can get quick access to pretrial services, including engaging with any treatment programs that they need.

A group of five retired local judges have saluted this change.

In an op ed, they write that it serves all members of the community saying, quote, the public's interest in fairness for the accused and the interest of the broader community will be considered by the judge.

End quote.

This hour, I'm joined by two of those retired judges, and let me welcome them in studio now.

Justice Joseph Valentino retired from the New York State Supreme Court.

Welcome back to the program.

Nice to have you here, Joe.

Thank you.

Thank you, Evan, and welcome to Judge Richard Dellinger.

Rick is retired from the New York Court of Claims.

Welcome back, sir.

Thanks for being here.

Thanks for having me, Evan.

And we're going to get to the new arraignment system.

And, you know, if it sounds kind of dry, this is important.

This is about fairness throughout the process.

And we're going to talk about how that works coming up here separately.

Just given that we were coming off a barnburner of a last hour, and where we were talking about in part with Mayor Rochester Mayor Malik Evans, about, about courts and about the roles of the courts.

If, for example, the city of Rochester decides that their federal funding is frozen for what the mayor thinks is an unfair reason, and they take it to court, what happens if the Trump administration simply tries to defy court orders or ignore judicial decisions?

This is what I want to start with, with our guest here, because, you know, Rick has experience and government experience on the bench.

Justice Valentino, of course, extensive experience on the bench.

And last week, I listened to an interview with Yuval Levin, who's a conservative scholar whose newest book is on the Constitution.

And he said he's deeply troubled by what he sees as executive overreach from the new administration.

And he was asked what could happen that might signal that we have moved into a true constitutional crisis.

And his answer was simple if Trump defies or ignores court orders and judicial decisions, we are in more trouble than we imagined.

Well, last night I read this in the New York Times, quote Vice President JD Vance declared on Sunday that, quote, judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power, delivering a warning shot to the federal judiciary in the face of court rulings that have, for now, stymied aspects of President Trump's agenda.

Vance A statement issued on social media came as federal judges have temporarily barred a slew of Trump administration actions from taking effect.

They include ending birthright citizenship and giving associates of Elon Musk's government slashing effort access to sensitive Treasury Department data, end quote.

JD Vance said this if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal if a judge tried to command the attorney general and how to use her discretion as a prosecutor.

That's also illegal.

But he also said this four years ago in 2021, in an appearance on a podcast, then Senator JD Vance actually was running for a Senate seat in Ohio at the time.

He said that if Donald Trump returned to the white House in 2025, what he should do is the following, quote fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state.

Replace them with our people.

Do what we want.

And when the courts, because you will get taken to court.

When the courts try to stop, you stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say the Chief Justice has made his ruling.

Now let him try to enforce it.

End quote.

Let me start with Judge Dellinger.

What do you make of some of that?

It's enormously troubling.

Even, this country is built on the rule of law.

It's enshrined in our Constitution.

We give, the Constitution gives tremendous powers to the federal government acting through Congress.

It also gives executive power to the president.

But those powers are defined by the Constitution.

And in our system, the Supreme Court of the United States basically says what the Constitution means.

And when they do that, it is the ultimate law of the land.

And what's happened in the course of the last two weeks, three weeks since, the new administration was sworn in, the executive power, that seems to be marching along without restraint, has nonetheless had to come to grips with a series of court decisions that say there is nothing in law that permits the president of the United States to do this.

And my concern is that if the president or J.D.

Vance decides that they do not want and they will not follow federal court decisions, then in essence, we have anarchy because the rule of law will disappear.

And when that happens, the dependability of the legal system, that is the notion that there are rules and people have to follow the rules.

And that's how we organize our society.

When that falls apart, we really end up in virtual anarchy.

And I'm troubled by the fact that the president of the United States has immunity from the Supreme Court.

I'm troubled by the fact that we've seen gone way, way, way, way, way overboard on pardoning people.

Joe Biden did it.

Bill Clinton did it.

Donald Trump did it.

I just I worried that were aggregating all this power in the hands of an executive who starts to look more and more like a king above the law, and whose decisions can't be questioned.

that's not who we are, just not who we are.

Before I turn to your column, let me just follow that last point.

It's interesting that, you say that he's governing, in effect, more like a king or a monarch than a president, because for all the talk about the dominant Republican ascendancy, it is the narrowest congressional advantage for a party since there were 50 states to three vote congressional advantage.

And it was a victory in the election in the popular vote for Donald Trump, a victory yes without a majority was a plurality.

So this still remains a very divided country.

This is not a steamrolled mandate.

And the the impression is that if he tries to govern in traditional ways within our system of divided powers, he won't get very far.

So he's just going to try to assert the authority that he doesn't have and, and just wonder, is anybody going to stop me?

And if they don't stop him, he'll have that power.

Correct.

a couple of things real quickly that, dovetail with what you said.

Oven.

Evan, this is not a Roosevelt.

Franklin Roosevelt, 1932, where I want a huge majority in both houses and was elected president.

This is not Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he beat Carter and had a significant majority in the House and the government.

This is a very close election.

I think the Democrats did not put forward their best candidate.

Be that as it may, that's all.

In the past.

But the point is, the when Donald Trump ran for president in 2016, he was enormously critical of Barack Obama using executive orders.

Yeah, to give him powers that were not defined by Congress or by any other statute or regulation.

Now we have a complete flip.

The Congress has been denuded.

It's been completely kicked out of the process.

And the question becomes, what is the fealty of this administration to the rule of law?

If there's no respect for the rule of law, if they're not going to follow the law?

I think our whole system is in serious, serious trouble.

And honestly, until the House stands up and says we're going to protect our prerogatives, or the Senate stands up and says, we're going to protect our prerogatives and not let the executive take all that power, that's the first restraint.

The second restraint, of course, is an independent judiciary, which has been the focal point of American justice and organization forever.

Justice Valentina, what do you make of it?

well, Evan, I woke up this morning and, I, read the vice president's statement, and I was very disturbed by it to to, the bottom line, the, he is an attorney, the vice president.

So he should know better.

I imagine you're going to hear from here on in about Marbury versus Madison and, and how our Constitution, assures, that there are three, different branches, checks and balances.

And, what also what, Judge Dellinger indicated.

So he should know better.

in that statement, you read that he made, that the, courts, don't determine, if the president acts, legitimately or, he can act and do whatever he wants.

Well, the courts do determine, how legitimate the president acts.

It's up to the courts to determine that, not the president.

And I believe that, that's the mindset of the president and the vice president at this time.

This should not be a a Republican or Democrat, problem.

This should be problems that we have as Americans.

And your question was, how do we stop it?

I agree with what Judge Dillinger said, but the only way we're going to stop it is if the Republicans in Congress step up, to stop this.

I think that's mostly correct, given where the power currently lies.

And then if there's entire just blanket fealty, then I don't know where this goes.

I want to say as well, just as Valentino, that when J.D.

Vance says, well, if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

Well, of course, but that's not what's currently in question.

And he knows that what's in question is birthright citizenship.

What's in question is the 14th amendment.

What's in question is, can Elon Musk simply go in and and tell tell everyone in the federal government, I'm going to I'm your boss now.

I'll determine who has a job and who doesn't.

We're going to freeze all spending, even though Congress is the appropriator of funds.

We're in charge now.

And J.D.

Vance knows this.

The vice president understands that's what's being debated.

What's not being debated is whether John Roberts or Ketanji Brown Jackson told a general how to conduct a war.

It's about these issues.

And so if there isn't, a push back in that way, what do you foresee here and what worries you the most?

Justice.

Valentino.

What worries me the most is that, he will the president will, adopt the Andrew Jackson stance and say, okay, that's what the court ordered saying goes all the way.

The Supreme Court and the Supreme Court indicates that the president is not acting properly, is not acting legitimately.

And he says, okay, well, then you enforce it.

the the only way that for them to enforce it is with the United States Marshals and, they are under the Department of Justice.

So consequently, I my biggest worry is that there would be no way to check this, if the Supreme Court, in fact, does, indicate that judge, everyone should recall that we were at a constitutional crisis in 1974, the United States Supreme Court told Richard Nixon, the then president of the United States, that he had to turn over the tapes in his office over the claim of executive privilege.

They said, you have to turn over these tapes to Congress.

There was a huge fight about it, and the Supreme Court said, you have to turn them over.

Richard Nixon was a lawyer, and while I may have disagreed with Nixon about policy, he was a lawyer at his heart.

And he knew that when the Supreme Court said, turn those tapes over.

He didn't have any choice because he respected the rule of law.

Interestingly enough, if he hadn't turned them over.

And this is where I agree with justice Valentino, the executive department, the Justice Department sends out the marshals to get the tapes.

If the president of the United States stands at the door of the white House and says, I'm not going to give them to you, I've got the military to defend me, and you're not going to be able to come in, then we've got a constitutional crisis.

Nixon avoided it, I think, in large measure because of his respect for the rule of law.

For JD Vance to say that this weekend, to make a comment about not following the law is, in my opinion, an invitation to anarchy.

And that is a complete dereliction of duty.

If anybody should be impeached.

It shouldn't be the the judge who issued an opinion not to be the vice president of the United States, who's saying, in contrast to the Constitution, that we don't have to follow judicial orders.

That's my opinion.

A basis for impeachment as a point of interest.

And the Nixon, scenario that you indicated it was an 8 to 0 decision by the Supreme Court.

And his first reaction was, is there any room here?

That was his first reaction that he wanted to know if there was any room.

At least that was the question.

Is there any room as opposed to.

Well, I don't have to follow this, right, right.

I mean, which is a, a different scenario.

One other point on this, just as Valentino talks about, it probably will take some conservative pushback given how the levers of politics works now.

And I think that's right.

And I want to read a little bit about what two different conservative intellectuals have been writing about this, and they're in very different places.

First, I mentioned Yuval Levin with the American Enterprise Institute.

He's a National Review editor.

He worked for the George W Bush administration.

His most recent book is On the Constitution.

He writes that one of the one of the ways that Americans get it wrong when we talk about the separation of powers is when we say, well, there's three branches of government and they have equal division of powers, as if every power gets chopped up into three and the judicial branch gets a third of it, and Congress gets the third, and the executive branch gets third.

And he said, it is not like that power is divided and different duties are given to different branches for very specific reasons.

So Congress appropriating funds means that the executive can't just go in and say, I don't want to do that.

So we're not doing it, that they don't have a third of that power.

They don't have that power.

This administration can't do what it's currently doing.

And it's important to delineate those powers and understand them.

So we don't have an executive that tries to concentrate all of them for itself.

And so he's warning against the saying the courts must be the voice and they must be respected.

On the other side, Adrian Formule is a Harvard law professor who has been writing for years about the importance of more cultural conservatism, more religious conservatism, and more concentrated power in conservative institutions.

He's argued for stronger presidential powers.

He wrote this weekend, quote, judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the separation of powers and should be ignored.

So that's a Harvard law professor saying he's starting to feel like what's actually happening is judicial interference.

What gives it away so far is what Tom cotton, the senator from Alabama, said this weekend, which is, he said, the judge that blocked birthright citizenship, the judge that blocked DOJ's from just running over the Treasury.

He said he thinks those are way out of bounds.

And what they should do is appeal.

And at least he said they should appeal as opposed to they should ignore.

There's a big difference, isn't there.

Oh, there's a huge difference.

And appeal is everybody's right.

if, the administration believes that these decisions are wrongly decided, they can appeal.

They can go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

They've done it before.

The other thing I just wanted to mention, it goes back to Richard Nixon, who had the same notion of, centralizing executive power.

Remember the impoundment cases?

the Congress under a statute passed, I think, in the last in the early Nixon years, had allocated money to the EPA for clean up environmental sites, and Nixon impounded the funds, refused to spend them, even though Congress had water rights.

Their spending.

Yeah, I believe that went through the federal courts.

And the decision was the president of the United States does not have the authority to deny spending that's been approved by Congress and signed by him into law.

You cannot do that.

Can't just impound money empowerments, the term we've heard a lot in the last week, correct.

And you my understanding and I certainly don't have any citations for it, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court of the federal courts across the board said you cannot impound funds.

These are laws in the budget.

approved by Congress is a law.

I mean, it says you must do this.

You're going to spend this money, you're going to do that.

And the executive cannot unilaterally change Congress's determination about its priorities.

It just can't.

Justice Valentino, does it give you some comfort to hear Senator Cotton say, not that we should ignore these rulings, but we should appeal them?

absolutely.

I'm not a big fan of Senator Cotton normally, but, I know exactly what you're saying, and I was glad to hear that, because that does show some respect for the Constitution.

And in the judicial, branch of the government.

In other words, don't ignore it, appeal it like, like as what has been done in the past.

All right.

We're going to get to the other reason we're here in just a second.

Let me grab a phone call from Adam in Newark.

First on the line.

Hi, Adam.

Go ahead.

Hey, Adam.

Thanks for taking my call.

Sure.

I don't really have a question.

I just have, you know, I really appreciate these conversations today.

this this one that's going on.

And Malik, even earlier, I, I was glad I caught it the basically the half of his conversation, but, it's a fascinating time we're living in to me.

Not because it's, you know, we can see a lot of progress.

It's because there's a lot of testing going on right now.

It seems like, when I try to discuss these things with people that might not agree with me, I, I'm an independent, so I try to be in the middle.

I try to be understand?

Sure.

But, but like Malik Evans said, you know, listen to more news now, listen.

Listen to more.

Listen to all sides and see what they're saying.

And, the the point is that I don't like to give the opposition or the other side so much credit and just degrade Trump or these, these administration figures he's got as Nazis or, fascists.

It's too easy.

It's too easy.

It's too simple.

There's there's there's there are Republicans that that know that this is nonsense, a lot of it.

And there's also Democrats that know that there's things that can be done.

But you have to wait.

And you almost have to let somebody cross the line before you can say, oh, they're going to cross the line.

So, so you see, hyperventilate.

You see a lot of hyperventilating that turns you off.

Well, to a degree.

You know, I, I try to listen to different news outlets.

I, you know, I don't spend a lot of time watching network TV, but I check in every day or two, what's what's been happening and listen to different points of views.

But there's really no point in listening to certain right wing news because it doesn't it doesn't appeal to me because I know what they're doing.

I know they're just toeing the line and they're they're cutting and pasting what they want to hear.

But, I, I just find it fascinating and I'm glad that there are with the Third Estate.

I think that's what Malik Evans, you know, who referred to the press?

I, I just want you guys to know that we appreciate it.

And, there's it is fascinating because it's almost scary, but I don't think this country is going to fall apart either way.

Okay?

And I, I just like to, I like to say to Republicans, when I do talk to, I see the sugar high as is wearing off.

You know, you guys, we're all happy, you know, good for you.

But the sugar high is going to wear off.

And, and I challenge them to pay attention.

I actually challenge them to keep up with the news and I'll ask them questions.

But basically all they want to talk about is Biden or, and, you know, yada, yada.

But so anyway, thank you guys for the conversation.

Adam is awesome and could call any time.

I appreciate that.

And I, I do have a question based on Adam's comments for our guests.

Let me just say the show is not about me.

but I've gotten a lot of email and response from listeners in the last couple of weeks.

And so I just want to address one point of what Adam is saying.

Adam is saying he hears people kind of prematurely saying, well, things are the worst they could ever be, or, you know, it's crisis or everything's terrible.

And I, I understand that.

I understand that the level of constant threat level red on whatever issue you pick it to, Adam, it's a turnoff.

And to some people it feels, fatiguing.

I get that what we are trying to do is simply analyze on this program what is happening and then what is being proposed and then what road we are going down.

I am not trying to scare anybody or tell you unnecessarily that we're moving towards, an extra judicial or constitutional crisis.

Nobody wants to go there.

The reason we're talking about hypotheticals today with two judges, before we get to why they're generous enough to set aside time on their Monday for us to begin with, is because we're not that far away from a scenario in which we could be looking at an actual constitutional crisis in which the courts are deemed just sort of irrelevant to the wishes of an executive that doesn't have those powers, at least not enumerated in the system, that that we all respect.

And I'm concerned about that.

I'm not trying to be hyperbolic.

I'm not trying to hyperventilate.

And I hear you, Adam.

I do hear you, And I want to respect the points that you're making there, but I am, Rick.

I'm not trying to lead us down a road of hyperventilating.

I want to be sober and looking at what's in front of us.

I completely agree, Evans.

This is a legal issue.

they're complicated issues.

They're nuanced.

They're, they're debates about the Constitution.

just as Valentinos started off with Marbury against Madison in 1803, where we defined the power of the where Justice Marshall defined the power of the Supreme Court to interpret the law.

And we have abided by that principle forever.

If, a public official says we're not going to do that, it seems to me that the final belief that people have in government will be seriously eroded.

And at that point, who knows where we go.

I think it creates a level of uncertainty that every American ought to be concerned about.

I also agree with you.

We're not there yet, but we seem to be moving down a path.

And every time someone in this administration says we don't have to listen to the courts or we should impeach the judge, like, Elon Musk said about the judge who interfered with the, the ability of the Department of Government Efficiency to get access to the Treasury documents.

if the answer is impeach everybody that we disagree with, I think we're in big, big trouble.

We can have legitimate debates, and they ought to be a part of the public discourse.

But the notion that we're going to throw around words like impeachment or, will ignore the law is just dangerous in this country.

Just as Valentino.

I think the reason even that, many people have got the sky is falling mentality lately, that, Adam brought forward is that we're getting a barrage of this, these issues.

Every day you wake up to a barrage of chaos, and, people are worried.

I know people that are conservative, liberal, both sides of the coin.

They're very worried, because of the actions of this administration.

And, I believe that's the the main cause of it.

One of the things was brought up about, I think what Adam said is that he doesn't like to, disparage, you know, Republicans or Democrats or whatever, but, I was thinking when, he was talking, concerning Elon Musk, if George Soros came in under, President Biden and had a bunch of interns go into the department of Treasury and Education Department and try to take a part that you'd hear a lot of Republicans complaining about that.

So why aren't we hearing from them now?

Well said.

and Lisa in Rochester, I'll squeeze in Lisa's calls.

Well.

Hi, Lisa.

Go ahead.

Hi.

I'm I'm, I'm concerned just the general, lack of understanding by so many Americans not bothering, basically, to understand how our system works and, the easy criticism of judges that happens, you know, no matter who, appointed them or where they were elected or how they were elected judges ethically can't speak, to the decisions they make at a general basis.

they can just speak in their orders.

And I'm wondering if part of the problem we have here is combined with my assumption of a general lack of understanding about how the system works, those judges inability to speak up for themselves and defend themselves is part of what's, the void that's being used here.

let's thank you.

anything you want to add there was very interesting that Lisa brings this up because, she just said, wait.

yeah.

Just as Valentino and I are working on developing an organization called the Retired Judges Association.

And what we intend to do is use our power, our public perception as retired judges to be, to protect judges who make controversial decisions.

Are you breaking a little news here?

Well, we it's it's we've got a concept paper out with touch base with all the retired judges.

We're getting them together.

We're going to form this association.

And what it's designed to do is address the exact problem that Lisa mentions, which is when public officials go after judges, the judge who's they're going after cannot respond.

Our ethical rules in New York do not allow that.

We believe that retired judges who are not bound by those restrictions should be able to contact the judge, say what happened?

What are the public documents?

Can we look at it so we can then issue a statement that says, here's why Justice Valentino made this decision.

Because the law says this.

And he decided to do it this way because that's what the law requires him to do.

So we are what if you find criticism is valid?

We would probably do the same thing.

We were going to say, if, if the judge makes a mistake, we have to.

I think we agree that, we would say that this is a, decision on the fringe of the law, or it's just in order for us to be, neutral, arbiters of judicial decision making, protect judges.

we have to have the we, as the retired judges have to have the ability to comment when they can't.

Yeah.

I mean, I think it's about to get even tougher for judges in that kind of a climate.

But David writes with a different kind of view.

So what you're describing is being sort of an effective adjudicator, a referee, a mouthpiece for judges who ethically cannot speak when they're being attacked or pilloried in the press or wherever.

David sees it a little differently, he says, I get what you've been talking about with executive disobeying court orders, but I'm at least as concerned that the judiciary itself isn't likely to try to restrain him, even absent his refusal to follow that restraint.

The Scotus decision about a president's immunity judge Cannon's decisions in the documents case aren't we also in trouble if this trend of the judiciary behaving in a Partizan pro-Trump fashion continues?

What David is saying is if the judiciary becomes just another extension of an executive that is very effective at getting its tools put in place, then what do you do justice?

Valentino?

You know, it's interesting what you said, Evan, because if you think back ten years ago, 15 years ago, when there was a report about, a judge's decision, it was never prefaced by a Trump appointee or Obama appointee.

No one knew who appointed that judge.

And we weren't supposed to.

I mean, like, we're we're supposed to be fixated on the politics of it.

Exactly.

Right.

And I think the fellow that you quoted, David, is correct, that it should not be a Partizan decision.

Unfortunately, I think the public is looking for a Partizan decision.

Oh, yeah.

You know, he voted that way or he ruled that way because, Obama appointed him and and I believe that, judges, have to separate themselves.

because there's, there's so many conflicts of interests that arise once you start acting in that manner.

You know, Rick, your colleagues making an interesting point when the birthright citizenship question went pretty quickly to the courts.

You know what I kept reading?

It was a Reagan appointee who rebuked the federal lawyers and said, you should know better.

And everybody's going like, wow, it was a Reagan appoint.

Yeah.

That's that.

It didn't used to be that way.

Well, and what's unfortunate from my point of view is that the whole process of selecting federal judges has become so Partizan the if you look at the, cadre of both Republicans and Democrats, they tend to come out, at least for the appellate, the, the circuit courts, they come out of, the think tanks, they come out of law students who go to the Justice Department and work for a Republican attorney general.

Then they end up on the bench.

What I think has happened is there was a time not long ago where if you were appointing a United States Supreme Court judge, you were looking to someone who was the president of the American Bar Association.

Louis Powell was a president of the bar Association.

And what happened is, over the course of the last 40 years, the presidents have realized that to the extent that they can stack the federal bench with their own acolytes, that gives them an advantage.

And I think that, whole notion and is contrary to the rule of law and what happens is the public says, oh, that's just a Democratic judge.

Of course, he wasn't going to agree.

Yeah.

And that and that doesn't help ensure trust that the you and I've talked about this before, Evan.

The whole system is built on trust and respect for institution.

When that erodes, we just drift away.

Yeah.

God help us.

we are late for our only break.

And now we're going to come back and we're going to talk about arraignment.

We're gonna talk about criminal justice and some of the changes that Monroe County is putting in place, that you might have been hearing about.

And we'll talk about that with our guests, a judge, Richard Dellinger, judge Justice Joseph Valentino, both retired, judge and justice, and talking about their recent op ed that they wrote with some of their colleagues about what's happening with criminal justice in Monroe County.

That's next.

On connections.

I'm Evan Dawson Tuesday on the next connections understanding 211.

Maybe you've heard of it.

Maybe you're not sure what it is.

We'll talk about why the people behind it feel like it is more important than ever across Western New York.

That's first hour.

In our second, our Vision Zero has an ambitious goal when it comes to pedestrian deaths and safe streets.

And we're going to talk about how that works in our second hour, Tuesday.

Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Green Spark Solar, serving the greater Rochester and Finger Lakes regions for over 20 years.

Green Spark Solar is dedicated to helping people power their homes and businesses with local solar power and battery storage, backup more at Green Spark solar.com and Great Tie Consulting, providing management consulting services to help support not for profit organizations.

Services include C-suite staffing support, executive coaching, and business and fund development.

More at Great Tie consulting.com.

This is connections on Exci on our many platforms on iOS.

Finger Lakes Public Radio on the Sky news YouTube page.

Hello there.

Wherever you are joining us.

Thank you for being with us on the Sky mobile app, which I think should be a legal requirement that we all have on our phones.

It's actually not.

We're talking about the courts today.

You can have it if you want it.

I think you should.

And we're glad that you are listening, watching with us today.

I want to say we're not going to monopolize the time of our guests, but I will ask both of them to come back in the future when these questions, of what's going on in the courts need some analysis from judges and justices who are retired and able to speak freely, and that that is a great benefit.

So we're grateful for that.

they reached out in the first place because, five retired judges came together to write an op ed recently about this new centralized arraignment part in Monroe County.

And again, it sounds a little dry, but it's it's really important.

We're talking about what happens when there is an arrest and the question of where you're going to be arraigned and when and how long the delay and what services are offered.

And is it different if you're in the suburbs or the city?

And is that system of justice fair?

And so I want to ask our guest to talk a little bit about what they see changing, and we'll talk about why they think this is a good change.

So Rick Dellinger, I'll start with you, judge.

What is the centralized arraignment part as you understand it?

Let me explain it this way.

Yeah.

Before the centralized arraignment part, which is a been a tradition in Monroe County since I think since its founding.

Joe, it's been forever.

We have, towns and villages in Monroe County.

Each of those towns and villages has a town or village judge.

If you were arrested in East Rochester, you would be taken to the East Rochester Village Court where you would be arraigned.

Arraignment is the first step in the criminal justice process, where the defendant comes in and faces a judge, and the judge has to determine how the case is going to proceed, whether they're going to release the person on their own recognizance, whether they're going to grant bail, and if so, and as such and such an amount, or whether they're going to order him to be detained previously and still happening since it doesn't take effect until the end of March, the local town or village judge would make that decision oftentimes in the middle of the night, I was a town of village judge, and at 2:00 in the morning, they would call me and the police would call me.

I'd show up at the courthouse and the police would be there, and the defendant would be there, and then I would conduct an arraignment, read the charges to the individual, show them, what the possible penalties would be.

They're entitled to a lawyer, explain sort of their constitutional rights to them.

And then I would make a bail decision whether to bail them, whether release in whatever it was.

Interestingly enough, the whole time I was a, town judge in 2005 to 2008, in most cases in the late or early morning hours, there was no lawyer present in the room, no prosecutor and no defense lawyer.

And what was interesting about that is when it was a serious charge, the police in Brighton, high quality police department, I would always say to the police, is there a recommendation from the district attorney about bail in a serious case?

What they would have done is called the UN, called Da.

And then the on call De would say 10,000, 5000, 3000, 2000, whatever the number was, that was the process.

And the local courts decided it.

Several years ago, in 2017, the state legislature passed the centralized arraignment part.

And what that means is that instead of all the arrested individuals being arraigned in the local town and village courts by local town and village judges, they would be transported to the city of Rochester to the Public Safety Building, and they would be held there until they could be arraigned in the morning by a city court judge, or in the evening by a rotating pool of town and village judges who would come in in a random.

The critical thing from my point of view, to this new system, and it was brought about, we could talk about how it sort of came about, but in the old system, when it was apparent to me as a town or village judge, that someone may have an alcohol problem or a drug problem, and that's why they were in front of me.

I did not have the capability to screen them for a drug problem or a mental health problem.

We just there was nobody in the room who knew that.

I think as a as a town judge, I could look at an individual and say, gee, this this person is really geared up on something and I wish I could do something for them.

But that was the old system in the new system, because there would be centralized arraignment in the city, public safety building, the sheriff's department has all the tools to analyze and assess the individual.

If there's a drug problem, if there's an alcohol problem, if there's a a violence problem or a domestic abuse problem, all of those things the sheriff and the downtown Public Safety building has all those services available at the time of arraignment.

The final fact I just wanted to mention is actually a simple legal one.

For years in this state, there was no requirement that the defendant have a lawyer at arraignment in a case called the Harold Herring decision, this, Court of Appeals, our highest court, said you have to have a public defender or someone to represent the defendant at the time of arraignment.

It was a fundamental change.

And Tim Danaher, who was the public defender at the time, and the district attorney, Sandra Dawley, tried to work out a situation where they could get overnight coverage through the public defender and the district attorney's office.

This creates a much easier system, because now the public defender will be present at all the arrangements in the Rochester City Court for either.

Whether you're arrested in the suburbs or the city, the district attorney will be there.

The court will have access to the resources to assess the defendant right at the start, and they'll have the rap sheet and the detailed information about any other criminal conduct by this, by the accused.

And then they can make a proper decision based on the bail laws as to whether to detain the person to set bail or to release them on their own recognizance.

It's a fundamental change in the way we do it.

More fair?

Absolutely more fair, because everybody who's rained on a particular day will be arraigned in the eyes of the same judge on Thursday.

On Monday morning, a single city court judge will sit there with their set of values and concept and treat whether you're arrested in the suburbs, whether you're arrested in the city, you'll be judged by the same criteria.

That's the way it works.

And justice.

Valentino, why does this system work better in your mind?

Two words uniform justice.

Just as Judge Dillinger stated, it will be a uniform across the board.

the judges will be so much better informed.

Judge Dellinger said when he was on call, he had a come in to arrange somebody.

It was just him.

now, beside the public defender or a private attorney and the Da, they'll have access to pretrial release people.

he'll have access to, the the, defendant's rap sheet, so to speak.

He'll have, all this information in front of him, in the the reason that it's coming into effect now, it's supposed to come into effect March and, the, Adam bellow, allocated certain funds so that there could be staffing.

Judge Taylor, who's the administrative judges, is behind this.

So there's there's a lot of people behind this that realize that it will be uniform justice.

My son, one of my sons, Joe, he's a, a town justice in the town of around quit Christmas time.

He was on call and I said, well, I'll go with you.

And, went to eradicate for an arraignment.

I was taken aback that there was nobody there at first, but then a public defender came in.

There was no Ada, but there was a public defender.

And afterward I talked to her and she said, oh, yeah, she said, I had to be in Brighton earlier.

And now after this, I have to go out to Greece.

So they're, to reinforce what Judge Dillinger stated.

They, they are stretched at this particular time.

Now, when there's a centralized arraignment, everybody will be at their best.

In a moment.

I'm going to read to the extent that there's any push back, I'll read it.

But but let me grab a phone call from Ontario County.

This is Dell.

Hey, Dell.

Go ahead.

Hi, Evan.

and, and thanks for having me.

Your Honor, is I have not, practice in front of you to either, but your, reputation is perceived themselves, so, it's an honor.

I, I'm I'm a public defender in Ontario County, and we've had a cap, centralize arraignment program there since 2018. we were, I think, one of the first counties.

And I also remember what it was like before that, where we were like.

Like Your honor said, we're we're driving all over the place.

you know, we couldn't, couldn't always get access to resources, things like that in the middle of the night.

And, I got to say, our, our, our Ranger program has been a huge success.

you know, no one's going more than 12 hours without an attorney.

And we have two sessions every, you know, every day, including weekends.

and more importantly, we have access to the resources that we need.

You know, you know, if someone needs a treatment referral or, you know, a housing referral or something along those lines, you know, it's it's it's certainly a, you know, a much more fair way of handling these arraignments.

And so I, you know, I know that to the extent that there has been any pushback, I can say that, you know, and I know on the Monroe County isn't definitely a much bigger county than, Ontario.

But here it's been working very well for for a number of years.

Del, thank you for that.

And I think, our guests in city are not surprised to hear that.

No, I'm not surprised.

the statistics, first of all, let me just commend a couple people.

the administrative judge, Bill Taylor, has been instrumental in making this happen before him.

Craig Doran, who was the administrative judge, was instrumental in making it happen in the outer counties.

the other seven counties in the seventh Judicial District have had gaps since, 2018 or 2019.

But in, the other person had two other people.

One is Amy Aquino, who's the village judge in, East Rochester.

She's been the chief administrator behind this and the chief counsel to the Cap program in the town of village judges is Judge Shannon Peril from Greece.

She's been instrumental in it.

This has been a team effort to put all of this in place.

So I just wanted to add that.

Let me add in response to Del Amo, my numbers show that there have been 8000 cap arraignments in Ontario County in the seven years that they've been in existence.

And at least.

Yeah, and at least as far as I can tell, it's it's not that it's without any objection.

I mean, there are clearly glitches here and there and getting the judges to staff them on the weekends and other the holidays, there's always going to be sort of this administrative issue that hangs over it.

But I don't think I've ever heard anybody complain that it isn't a better, a fairer system for everybody involved.

Yeah, definitely.

Agreed del.

Thank you.

Always good to see you.

And it's always nice to hear from professionals who are listening.

like del, we've got such a really, strong, diverse and smart audience.

And so we always appreciate the feedback.

Let me just to the extent there's any pushback, it might look like this.

Well, could be expensive.

Well, as County Executive Bello said $2 million expenditure up front.

But but that allows the towns and villages to then save on their own and hopefully offer relief taxpayers that way.

And they really believe strongly that that will happen.

The other one, I made the mistake.

I went against my own advice.

I read the comments, I say don't read the comment.

Now, in the social media world, there's not a whole lot of comment sections on online stories, but 13 way I'm I'm looking at you and there's comments and I read the comments and some of the the snark, the cynicism.

It sounds like this.

I'll read it.

who cares what your arraignment system is?

Everyone gets released now anyway.

Judges have no discretion.

We're not allowed to hold anyone after bail reform.

So that's what it sounds like.

Rick, I'm just laughing because I'm looking at your face there, of which it.

That's complete nonsense.

Okay, that is the one of the interesting things in the.

And there's no question that the original bail reform, everybody who was against bail reform wanted a dangerous standard for bail.

If you could prove that somebody was a danger, you should be able to detain them and not let them even be eligible for bail.

The state legislature, in response to the outcry about that question, put in what's called the harm on harm rule.

just as Valentinos well familiar with this, which says that if the Arraigning judge is convinced that the individual before him who's committed a harm could commit another harm, they can detain them.

And it seems to me, while we don't have a, quote, dangerous standard, we've got a harm on harm standard, which in my opinion is roughly it's effectively it's effectively incomparable.

And and the bottom line is this there is there is no question that there are people, individuals who are accused of crimes who could be, if they were let go in the general population could be a risk of committing additional crimes.

But that's up to the judge using the harm on harm standard, and trying to figure out how it's going to work.

The one thing I will say is that because centralized arraignment has the pretrial release and other services available, the chance that someone would be let go in the general, release to the general public without any help, without having someone follow them or someone help them or someone to deal with their drug or alcohol problem is diminished.

And I think that that's a sense that the community is safer.

All right.

Less than a minute.

Go ahead.

Justice.

I understand the fellow's comment, but now the judges can take into account, the defendant's history, the the actual charges, conviction record, possession of firearms, serious harm, in respect of flight, if they feel that there may be flight, pending criminal prosecution.

So there's many more things that can be considered.

under the new statute that has been enacted concerning bail.

It is not just a blanket.

Nobody gets held.

And there's no discretion.

No, there's no absolutely right.

Yeah.

Okay.

I want to thank our guests for taking the time to come in and explain, their views on the cap decentralized arraignment part for Monroe County, which goes into effect.

I think, at the end of next month.

That's coming.

And, we'll put if we want.

Can we post, can we post their op ed?

Is that all right with you guys?

That's fine.

We'll share their op ed in our show notes if we can, if you want to read their thoughts at length, but for now, we will, bid farewell and tell our guests we'll see you soon.

Because I know there's a lot more to talk about in the world of of courts, on all levels.

Justice Joseph Valentina from the New York State Supreme Court, a retired justice.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you to have it.

And Judge Richard Dellinger, Rick is retired from the New York Court of Claims, a town judge for, what, four years?

Right.

And three more years.

Yep, yep.

Thank you for being here as well.

Thanks very much for having us, Evan.

And from all of us at connections, it's a huge team.

If I try to list everybody, we'd be here for another 20 minutes.

But I'm just going to say thank you for listening.

It means a lot to us and we will talk to you tomorrow on member support, public media.

Oh.

This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management, or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience, any rebroadcast or use in another medium without express written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the connections link at WXXI news.org.