The pages of a 16-year-old girl's diary changed Bill Bastuk's life forever.
One entry accused the Rochester-area man of rape. Later entries helped convince a jury to exonerate him.
Even though these journal pages were the main evidence against Bastuk, his defense counsel had to wage a legal battle to obtain the documents from prosecutors.
After he was found innocent, Bastuk joined others who had been wrongfully accused or convicted, as well as defense lawyers and other advocates, in a crusade to reform "discovery" in New York. His organization, It Could Happen to You, took their cause to lawmakers at the state capitol last week.
Discovery is the legal process before trial when both defense and prosecution share facts and prepare their arguments. Under state and federal law, the prosecution has a duty to provide certain material to the defendant, whether it was requested or not. This can include police reports, transcripts and other records that would be important to the defense, such as, arguably, the pages of Bastuk's accuser's diary.
The statutes governing criminal discovery in New York are considered to be unduly limiting; even the president of the District Attorneys Association of New York, Cyrus Vance, described New York as one of the "most restrictive states" when it comes to providing criminal discovery.
Over the years, legislators have introduced bills to open the state's discovery process, as prosecutors have lobbied hard against it, saying that such transparency leads to an environment where people are unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement.
Kathleen Hogan, Warren County district attorney and former president of DAANY, said what's needed is a balanced approach. "When looking at whether discovery should be reformed, you need to look with a realistic eye towards the risks of our victims and witnesses," said Hogan. "Without victims and witnesses, forget about wrongful convictions, we won't be able to hold anyone accountable."
New York's Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman has supported expanding New York's discovery laws, and the issue was recently taken up by Lippman's Justice Task Force, a group made up of policy leaders in prosecution, defense, policing and the judiciary, which was created to explore ways to minimize the risk of wrongful convictions. The Justice Task Force is expected to make recommendations about discovery reform in the near future.
Advocates for a more open discovery process say that all too often, prosecutors strategically withhold key information until the last minute, which they are entitled to do with certain types of information under state law, and then dump it on the defense, or as some defense attorneys call it, "trial by ambush."
In Bastuk's case, his defense received a critical diary entry just 24 hours before they went to trial.
"The scariest part is it could happen to anyone," said Bastuk, a former Irondequoit town councilman and county legislator.
Attending the meetings Bastuk helped organize at the capitol last week was William Lopez, a 54-year-old man released from prison this January after spending the past 23 years behind bars for a murder he didn't commit.
The prosecution's case largely rested on the testimony of a woman who had just finished smoking crack when the murder happened. In a secret arrangement with prosecutors, the woman testified in exchange for leniency in her own drug case. The prosecution later claimed they withdrew the deal they cut with the witness, only to quietly reinstate it.
Lopez visited a number of lawmakers on Tuesday to advocate for a bill from Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, representative of Brooklyn's northern district, that would change New York's system to "automatic" discovery, meaning all materials are provided to the defense without a motion.
Because automatic discovery carries with it an ongoing obligation to divulge information, this disclosure might have saved Lopez from prison. That's the type of narrative Lopez and other advocates presented to legislators during their rounds at the capitol on Tuesday; one of their stops was the office of State Senator John DeFrancisco, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
DeFrancisco has experience on both the prosecution and defense side of the courtroom, and said he promised to "review the bill and get back to them" about whether he could support it as is or required modifications.
DeFrancisco proposed his own discovery reform bill in 2007, and said he still supports changing the current system, such as making certain information disclosures automatic, and finding a more affirmative method for the defense to ensure they've received all the evidence they are entitled to.
Evidence that is exculpatory, meaning it suggests a defendant's innocence, must legally be turned over by the prosecution, though "in many instances, it's not turned over," said DeFrancisco.
"A DA will say I don't think this is exculpatory, and the defense will have no clue what's in the DA's file," said DeFrancisco. "I'm not saying DAs are unscrupulous, it's just about fundamental fairness."
The bill's sponsor, Lentol, worked as a prosecutor in an office that practiced open discovery, providing documents to the defense without requiring they file a motion to request it. He said this process can actually be advantageous to the prosecution, since a strong case can encourage a defendant to accept a plea offer rather than going to trial, which can be lengthy and expensive.
But some prosecutors say Lentol's proposal goes too far. Albany District Attorney David Soares called it "the single most dangerous piece of legislation that I have witnessed over the years" concerning criminal justice reform.
He said urban violence is at an unprecedented level, and so is the intimidation of people who cooperate with police and prosecutors. "We have never before in our history had to relocate as many people as we do now," said Soares.
The Albany DA's office is investing in a "case tracking system," said Soares, that would allow prosecutors to electronically pull information from the police department. "Our intent is to then review all that information, upload it as early as possible, and then allow a defense attorney to retrieve that discovery," he said.
As far as what gets released, though, Soares said he believes "that authority should always rest with prosecutorial discretion, and if there is an issue, it's up to the defense to file motions and allow for a judge to engage a review."
In the end, it's about witness safety, said Soares. "I know that once a month I am in a room begging a mother to allow her child to move forward and cooperate with us, because of the fear they are living with, and rightfully so," said Soares.
It's an argument against open discovery that Troy defense attorney E. Stewart Jones called "simply phony" since there is "no risk of harm" in the majority of cases.
"In mob cases, violent gang cases, major drug cases, that's a legitimate issue. But that's not most cases," said Jones. "You can structure it in a way that's witness protective, and clearly there are cases where it's necessary, but to use it as a general rule for denying change in how business is done is not fair and it's not real either."
asanto@timesunion.com 518-454-5008 @alysiasanto