NYSACDL Officers and Directors 2025
PRESIDENT:
Jessica A. Horani, Manhattan
PRESIDENT-ELECT:
Kevin M. Stadelmaier, Buffalo
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT:
Alan S. Lewis, Manhattan
VICE PRESIDENTS:
John Ingrassia, Newburgh
Randall Inniss, Suffern
Seymour W. James Jr., Manhattan
Jill Paperno, Rochester
Claudia Trupp, Cragsmoor
SECRETARY:
Grainne E. O'Neill, Brooklyn
TREASURER:
Samuel Braverman, Manhattan*
DIRECTORS
Michael T. Baker, Binghamton
Stephanie Batcheller, Albany (NYSDA Designee)
Jacqueline E. Cistaro, Manhattan
Xavier R. Donaldson, Manhattan
Drew Dubrin, Rochester
Allegra Glashausser, Brooklyn
Kendea Johnson, Manhattan
Jessica Kulpit, Buffalo
Leanne Lapp, Canandaigua
Lindsey Lewis, Manhattan (NACDL Designee)
Renate Lunn, Manhattan
Greg Lubow, Tannersville
Nathanial Z. Marmur, Manhattan
Noreen McCarthy, Keene Valley
Michael McDermott, Albany
Eli Northrup, Bronx
Stephen Preziosi, Manhattan
Hilary Rogers, Plattsburgh
Donald Thompson, Rochester
Andre A. Vitale, Jersey City
Sherry Levin Wallach, White Plains
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT:
Steven Epstein, Garden City
PAST PRESIDENTS:
Lawrence S. Goldman
Paul J. Cambria, Jr.
Jack T. Litman
Mark J. Mahoney
David L. Lewis
William I. Aronwald
Thomas F. Liotti
Ira D. London
Jeanne E. Mettler
Murray Richman
Gerard M. Damiani
Marvin E. Schechter
Kathryn M. Kase
Russell M. Gioiella
James P. Harrington
Richard J. Barbuto
Martin B. Adelman
Joshua L. Dratel
Ray Kelly
Daniel N. Arshack
Lisa Schreibersdorf
Craig Schlanger
George R. Goltzer
Kevin D. O’Connell
Richard D. Willstatter
Benjamin Ostrer
Aaron Mysliwiec
Wayne C. Bodden
Andrew Kossover
John S. Wallenstein
Robert G. Wells
Lori Cohen
Timothy W. Hoover
Alice Fontier
Brian Melber
Yung-Mi Lee
Steven Epstein
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
Jennifer Ciulla Van Ort, Clifton Park
*To be appointed at January 17, 2025 Board of Directors meeting.
Ensure NYSACDL’s Con�nued Success with a Dona�on to The Defenders Circle!
The Defenders Circle benets NYSACDL members, seminars, and programs. NYSACDL has experienced tremendous growth over the past several years in membership, seminar a�endance, advocacy efforts and more. Defenders Circle members play a crucial role in ensuring that NY SACDL maintains its success and strength as the leading criminal defense organiza�on in New York State.
I want to join the Defenders Circle at the level below*!
Outgoing President's Report
It has been an honor to serve this Association as its President. Our officers, board of directors, committee chairs and members have worked diligently this year and accomplished a great many things for our members and their clients.
We began the year with the goal of becoming “Better Together.” This started by strengthening, expanding and diversifying our committees. We opened pathways for members to ascend to leadership through service on committees and created two new committees to focus on forensic science and technology. Two working groups were formed to address conditions of confinement and restorative justice.
We sought to become bigger because we became better. Efforts were made to improve member benefits and educate the public on what those benefits were. More benefits were added such as regular free webinars on important matters such as opening a criminal defense practice and a Monday Message from the President each week. We had our inaugural swearing in ceremony at the US Supreme Court at which 12 of our members were sworn in to practice before the Court. A President’s Fund was created which funded approximately 70 scholarships for young attorneys with financial hardships. We created a working group to make the listserv more useful to our members. A goal of increasing membership to 2024 in 2024 was established and we are close to meeting that goal with 1900 members as I write this (94% of our goal).
We set a path for the Association to move into the third phase of a not for profit’s growth to allow the board to focus more on long term planning and growth. To facilitate this, we launched a new website, began a search for a second employee and organized a Board member call day to speak in person to members. We established written requirements for board members and established the first ever new board member orientation program. The structure of board meeting was changed to allow for more time to be spent on deep dives into important issues. Our strategic plan was moved forward. We started the practice of inviting a young lawyer to each board meeting.
Financial responsibility was made a priority. The finance committee was created, and it implemented procedures for financial planning and investments. Smart Start was added as our principal sponsor.
Our growth in membership furthered the position and reputation we have statewide. This included a meeting with Chief Judge Wilson to discuss restorative justice and issues related to cases heard by the Court of Appeals. We were asked to weigh in on the procedures of the State Commission on Prosecutorial Conduct.
Our committees worked tirelessly. This included the hard work of the PJCC which filed many complaints with the state commission on prosecutorial conduct and submitted comments on the proposed guidelines of the commission. Our Amicus Committee had many successes including an amicus brief relied on by the Court of Appeals in People v. Bay, the first Court of Appeals decision on discovery reform. Our CLE committee produced an incredible year of programming that was successful financially and academically. Our Motor Vehicle Committee worked tirelessly opposing the new DMV regulations and then educating members on their impact. Our Legislative Committee fought in Albany for changes; successfully fought against changes to bail and discovery reform and held off cameras in the courts.
None of this would have been possible without the support of everyone at my firm (Barket, Epstein, Kearon, Aldea & LoTurco, LLP) and my wife Melissa and daughters Alexis and Samantha. None of this could have been accomplished without our Executive Director, Jennifer Van Ort who has now served this Association for more than ten years.
Thank you for trusting and allowing me to serve the Association as its President. It was an honor and a privilege which has been one of the pinnacles of my career thus far. I look forward to remaining active as a past President and watching the Association continue to make the lives of our members and their clients Better Together.
Steven B. Epstein, NYSACDL President 2024
From the Editors’ Desk
Allow me to introduce myself - my name is Gráinne O’Neill. I have been a NYSACDL board member for many years now and have been working on Atticus for the past year and am now the editor! I practice in New York City as a partner in O’Neill and Hassen, LLP, mostly in Federal Court through the Criminal Justice Act panel. And I cut my teeth as a public defender in New Orleans. I, like I’d imagine most of you, have a passion for criminal defense and our community, including the NYSACDL community. We are thankful that, in addition to our busy schedules, we bring you this edition in time for the dinner. The editorial team of John Wallenstein, Joe Rochman, and Mehdi Essmidi, has been working tirelessly to get this winter edition in your hands and I hope you will find it edifying and enjoyable to read.
EDITORS
Mehdi Essmidi
Gráinne O'Neill
Joe Rochman
John S. Wallenstein
A publication of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
©2024 NYSACDL
636 Plank Road, Ste. 215
Clifton Park, NY 12065
Phone: 518-443-2000
Fax: 888-239-4665
www.nysacdl.org atticus@nysacdl.org
I am really excited for you to read Steve Epstein’s article on Summations - there are quite a few practice tips in there that everyone can use. For example, starting to think about summation in the initial client meeting is surely something we can all aspire to if not achieve in every instance
Emilee Sahli gives us a view into something NYSACDL has been doing for many years - giving scholarships to new-ish lawyers to the National Criminal Defense College (NCDC). I myself am a graduate (although not through the Jack T. Litman Twelve Angry Men Scholarship). It was nice to read about some of the changes and some of the consistent things in NCDC. I always recommend that any lawyer interested in doing criminal defense apply to the program.
Kevin Stadelmaier’s Legislative Committee has been hard at work preventing rollbacks of existing criminal defense gains and pushing forward new initiatives. Their work is really impressive and an important part of what NYSACDL does. Before joining the board I hadn’t understood just how focused we were as an association on moving our state government. This work is so important to all of us but especially to our clients. As a great man once (or many times) said, “we are better together!”
Without further ado, I bring you the winter edition of Atticus.
Mehdi Essmidi, Gráinne O'Neill, Joe Rochman, John S. Wallenstein
Submit an Article to Atticus
Members wishing to submit articles for inclusion in Atticus should submit them via email to atticus@nysacdl.org. Questions regarding submission may be directed to: Jennifer Van Ort, Executive Director, NYSACDL 518-443-2000 jlvanort@nysacdl.org
The editors reserve the right to modify any submission for style, grammar, space and accuracy. Authors are requested to follow these guidelines:
1. Use footnotes rather than endnotes.
2. When a Case is mentioned in the text, its citation should be in the text as well.
3. Articles longer than 4 pages may be edited or serialized.
The View From the Park
NYSACDL is a lean organization with a small staff. We rely heavily on our dedicated volunteers to make everything happen. Taking time to recognize the many accomplishments of our staff and volunteers is essential as we move into the new year. As the Executive Director of NYSACDL, I am sincerely grateful for all of the hard work driving our success.
Jennifer Van Ort, Executive Director
Atticus and the NYSACDL Publications Committee have recently experienced some leadership changes. John Wallenstein, PastPresident and long-time Editor and Chair of the Publications Committee has passed the torch to Board Secretary Gráinne O’Neill. John will remain an active part of producing Atticus, of course, and we thank him wholeheartedly for his many years of service in this role. Knowing he was at the helm of the Committee, relieved me from this challenging and time consuming work to focus on other aspects of our growth.
Gráinne, along with her Board Secretary role - an already immense undertaking - took the helm and got Atticus out the door, excelling in doing so. Along with John and our other long-term committee members, Jessica Horani and Tim Murphy, Gráinne has been joined by two new committee members: Mehdi Essmidi and Joseph Rochman. Mehdi and Joe are excellent additions to the committee - thank you for jumping in!
Of course, our other busy committees deserve credit too - all volunteer run! These committees include Membership, Legislative, Motor Vehicles, Amicus, Conditions of Confinement, Dinner, PJCC, and many more! Please see the full list of our Committees at the back of the magazine. Thank you to everyone who dedicated time to NYSACDL in 2024 - whether big or small, your impact was felt and important.
NYSACDL’s leadership is important too. Your Board of Directors and President make a huge commitment to service during their term. Thank you to outgoing President Steve Epstein for the immense amount of time and talent you put into serving NYSACDL in 2024. I look forward to seeing how you continue to impact our organization as a Past-President! You join the ranks of many Past-Presidents who continue to play an important role in NYSACDL and I thank all of you for continuing to be of service, including Rob Wells, who we will honor at this year’s Annual Dinner.
Incoming President, Jessica Horani, is ready to take on leading NYSACDL into 2025. I look forward to working with you and seeing what the year will bring!
As always, thank you to all of our members for your continued support of NYSACDL, your clients and your colleagues. Here’s to a great New Year!
Three Free Tools for Case Organization
Have you ever wanted to throw your laptop out the window after spending hours trying to use it. You are not alone! A lot of technology designed for lawyers is awkward and difficult to use. Whereas technology designed to support other industries is often elegant and intuitive. Think about how easy it is to use your bank’s software compared to webcrims. The firm hourly billing model probably contributes to this failure to invest in technology and efficiency. There is little or no interest in using technology to speed up the process by the big players in our industry. In other industries, like banking, people want tools that speed up the work they perform. More efficiency leads to more revenue. So the tools in those industries are far more advanced and helpful than our industry.
I keep an eye on technology used by other industries for project management to assess if their technology can be ported over to our work. Here, I discuss three project management tools that I use in my daily practice.
ASANA
Asana bills itself as a project organization tool, “Organize your team's work and projects with Asana's organization tools”. It is an extended to-do list organization system where everyone can work together on projects. I set up a project for each case I have and then I can assign tasks to myself, investigators, paralegals, or co-counsel.The free version fulfills my needs. I do know that some civil firms (the kind that don’t bill hourly and want to get work done efficiently ) use Asana for case management. You can pretty easily see what tasks remain, which allows teams to prioritize tasks or comment on tasks so everyone is on the same page. I find it very helpful for bigger cases that have a lot of moving parts and multiple team members.
AIRTABLE
Airtable is great for organizing case materials. It says that it is the “Platform to build next-generation
Digital Docket
Grainne O’Neill, NYSACDL Secretary and Board Member
apps.” Well we won’t be doing that with Airtable, but we can use it to organize complicated cases with a lot of important details or facts. I use the application to keep track of records requests and subpoena returns. The Federal Defenders of New York use Airtable a lot in their practice. It can be used to keep track of witnesses, facts, and to make a timeline for a case. It is helpful if more than one person is reviewing discovery, to keep information consistent and all the knowledge in one place. I’ve used it to figure out witness information, by keeping track of all the mistakenly not-redacted materials to compile dossiers of people that allow me to find them. It is really helpful in medicare fraud type cases for organizing facts that are found in the discovery. The free version should be enough for almost all uses. The paid version is $10 per person per month with no minimum number of users.
MONDAY
I saw Monday advertised on the subway and decided to take a look. It is also used by huge corporations. I have settled on using it as an address book for my clients and their families. I would be able to use it more but the paid version requires three users, which I don’t have, so I have refused to pay for the additional features that would make the product work for my firm. Like Asana, Monday can also be used for project planning and it is used by many large companies.
I encourage you to check out these or other applications, especially if you find the technology you are asked to use is difficult to use. You might have more technical ability than you previously thought. The problem probably was not your skill, but the awkward tools we are required to use.
A Message From the Incoming President
January seemed so far away but a few short months ago; and yet here we are in a New Year, and I am embarking on my journey as President of this enduring Association with all the excitement (and anxiety) that it entails.
For those who don’t know me well yet, I began my membership in this association in 2011 at a time when I was returning to New York State practice after working as an Assistant Public Defender in Miami-Dade County. I graduated from Cardozo School of Law in 2001 when New York City’s Legal Aid was in the midst of a hiring freeze, and so took a position in Miami. That twist of fate granted me an unparalleled training ground where I learned trial skills from some of the best, and took approximately ten misdemeanor cases to jury trial in my first year as a supervised assistant public defender. That year set the bar pretty high for me; those ten trials ended in ten not guilty verdicts. I learned the flip side of that feeling when I lost my first jury trial in New York. Some of the wins from that first year in Miami have blended together with the passage of time and the number of cases I’ve handled since. But I will never forget that first loss.
I went on to spend some time in private practice as a solo practitioner before joining my current office at New York County Defender Services where I now work as a Senior Trial Attorney in the Homicide and Major Case Unit. The opportunities that have been provided to me over the years at my office have been significant and I am grateful for having been given a supportive place to do what I love at a high level surrounded by inspiration. Every day I am fortunate to see how my colleagues make a difference in our client’s lives in ways both great and small.
What this work taught me as I matured over the years, and worked in different offices was that I was undeniably first, foremost, and always a defense attorney. My fidelity to my client and the rights afforded to them by the constitution comes first beyond political affiliation, personal belief, or judgment; but it also taught me that this work that I loved wasn’t always guaranteed to love me back, and that sometimes I would lose, both inside and outside of the courtroom. In order to keep going, I would need to develop a strong internal and external support system.
NYSACDL has been an integral part of that support system and it has grown and evolved with me. It has been there for me when I was in private practice as a solo practitioner, relying on
Jessica A. Horani
NYSACDL members who taught me how to draft a retainer letter and shared insight into courtroom practices. NYSACDL is how I found my early office spaces and how I re-acquainted myself with New York legislation as well as picked up the occasional per diem job when I needed it. It has remained with me as I transitioned back to public defense and routinely rely on the expertise of our members across the State for insight when tackling complex homicide cases and searching for experts. It’s where I came to know Past President Richard ‘Dick’ Barbuto in his position as Editor in Chief of this magazine. I cannot recall exactly how or why; but in those early years Dick Barbuto asked me, as a member, if I wanted to review a book for publication in Atticus. I was thrilled and accepted immediately. A book was sent my way (for free!) and I wrote my review and it was published: my first Atticus byline! Dick was a positive and encouraging presence in my professional life in those years. I was generally in awe of this association and the learned counsel who were its leaders. The thought that he believed I had the potential to break through the ranks was surreal. I recall laughing when he would tell me how one day I would be Editor of Atticus and then, (more internal laughter) even someday President of the Association. I couldn’t believe it. And yet; he opened that door for me and in the years to come I did serve as Editor of Atticus and now, years after Dick’s passing, I’m your President of the Association.
Thank you Dick for believing in me to one day lead this association before I ever thought it possible. Thank you to every fellow Board Director and member who has helped me make my way here in New York and in this association. I have a long line of teachers behind me beginning with Past President Steve Epstein (who set the bar quite high himself with his prolific year!) and all those who came before him.
As President of NYSACDL I am looking forward to paying the work forward and helping hold that door open for the next generation of members of all backgrounds. Our future as an association depends on it and depends on all of you. Simply put; if you are a defense attorney in New York State; then this is the association for you and if you think you don’t yet see your place here at the table; please pull up your chair. We are waiting for you to join us.
NYSACDL Update LegislativeCommittee
By Kevin Stadelmaier
As has been the case for many years, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Legislative Committee was hard at work in 2024 seeking positive changes to the criminal legal system for both attorneys and clients alike.
After successfully lobbying for adequate funding for 18b rate increases (the first in 20 years) in 2023, the Committee once again looked to go on offense in pushing for more reforms. While several items from previous sessions continued to be high atop our list, we began discussion on substantial additions to the menu of priorities we felt were most important to our attorney members and their clients.
Kevin Stadelmaier First Deputy DefenderCriminal Division for the Erie County Assigned Counsel Program
Our 2024 list was as follows:
• Full State Funding for 18-b Increases, Cost of Living (COLA) and Removal of Caps
• Stand Strong Against Further Bail and Discovery Rollbacks;
• Support for “End Predatory Court Fees Act” (S313-Salazar)
• Support for “Jury of Our Peers” (A1432A-Aubry / S206-A-Cleare)
• End Coercive Police Interrogation with Amendment of CPL 60.45 (S2303-Myrie/ A1156-Vanel)
• Support of “Communities Not Cages”;
• Support of “Youth Justice and Opportunities Act” (A4238-O’Donnell S3426-Myrie).
• Support of “Treatment Not Jails” S1976 (Ramos)/ A1263 (Forrest);
• Re-Submission of Appeals Waiver Bill on Suppression Hearings(S939-Bailey/ A152-Cruz)
• Re-Submission or Support of Wrongful Convictions Act (S215-Myrie/, A2878 Aubrey)
• Support of The Promoting Pre-Trial (PromPT) Stability Act. S3066 –Ramos/ A3750a-Septimo)
• Strong Opposition to the Governor’s Budget Proposals on Hate Crimes and Retail Theft
Continued on next page
Legislative Committee
Continued from previous page
Our work started on a positive note as early on, we were advised that after several grueling fights on bail and discovery, carceral elements within NYS had lost the appetite for further rollback fights; at least for 2024.
We were advised that the Governor’s 2024 agenda was focused on housing, immigration/migration and, as will be seen later, retail theft and hate crimes. We also faced a significant threat to future indigent defense funding, which came to fruition in an extremely unfortunate turn of events..
reforms will continue to level the playing field for those criminally charged.
Additionally, one issue not initially on our priorities list which required our Committee to weigh in on was “Cameras in the Courts” (“CITC”). A largely “Trump trial” driven proposal, this effort would have seen cameras and recording equipment in virtually every courtroom
"As society sees what women can do, as women see what women can do, there will be more women out there doing things, and we’ll all be better off for it."
Despite the intelligence on bail and discovery, we felt it prudent to ensure that our voices were heard on continued opposition to further rollbacks. Our early efforts were geared toward ensuring that any lingering thoughts of once again challenging the landmark bail and discovery reforms was stamped out, at least for this year.
“A Discovery Fight Group,” which includes NYSACDL committee members, continues to meet weekly to address any potential challenges to CPL 245. In the 2024 session, those efforts culminated in a highly successful “Legislative Briefing” held on March 8th, 2024.
Sponsored by Sen. Jamaal Bailey and Sen. Neil Breslin, the briefing was attended by over 100 legislators and their staffers and featured impassioned and information rich presentations by defenders statewide, including NYSACDL Past President Alice Fontier. The response was outstanding. Due to these efforts and others, I am pleased to report that the FY 2025 budget approved on April 21st contained zero rollbacks in either bail or discovery. It ensured, at least for 2024, that the landmark
Sandra Day O’Connor (1930-2023), first woman Supreme Court Justice
in New York State. No “off ramps” existed for defender objections and the proposed measure left sole discretion in the hands of the Judge to determine whether cameras would be allowed.
After just working for years to enact “Clean Slate,” such a provision would have allowed for the continued victimization of large populations of New Yorkers. Even those who ultimately were acquitted or had their cases dismissed. NYSACDL opposed this measure due to its lack of safeguards.
Thankfully, it did not find its way into the budget. Despite a resurrection at the close of the cycle. This committee with statewide defender efforts successfully beat back the measure for 2024.
If the absence of rollbacks, and “CITC” was the rosy exterior of 2024’s pre-budget cycle, then the legislation passed on retail theft, hate crimes, and funding threats was the dark underside.
In virtually every criminal justice speech since the Fall of 2023, the Governor communicated her thoughts about the perceived “retail theft crisis.” Echoed by NYC Mayor Eric Adams, while he faces laundering and fraud charges, her descriptions of packs of individuals operating in concert to execute smash, grab, and fencing activities was at the forefront of her agenda. She made it the centerpiece of her criminal justice agenda last year and vowed to address it by any means necessary in the next.
Even though New York has a comprehensive “Hate Crimes Act” the Governor was intent on adding substantially more offenses. Even though those additions might pull in those individuals who had no intent to commit a hate crime. While NYSACDL abhors hate in its many forms, we are strongly opposed to overbroad measures that will over-criminalize. Especially in a state like NY where standard policy for decades has been overcriminalization and rampant incarceration.
If those weren’t enough, the Governor also sought to sweep $234 million from the Indigent Legal Services Fund. This Fund, created in 2003 when the 18-b rates were raised to $60/$75, was meant to fund a host of indigent defense initiatives such as Hurrell-Harring Statewide Expansion, 18-b rate increases, Family Court reform, enhanced parental representation and other critical measures. The fund had grown quite large and until this year it was used for its intended purposes. Unfortunately, the Governor is now attempting to sweep money from the fund.
When the final budget text was released between April 19th and 21st, 2024, the
politics overshadowed true efforts to address crimes of poverty and mental illness once again.
The final budget continued state funding for the increases to the 18-B rate and rollbacks to discovery and bail were stopped, but funds for defender discovery implementation were re-appropriated and other less popular provisions were included that will hurt the defense bar's efforts. Aside from NYSACDL’s longstanding antipathy toward creation of new crimes, these provisions are negative from a host of other standpoints:
Most notably:
• The budget enacted new PL 120.19 “Assault on Retail Workers.” This provision elevated a simple assault to an “E” felony where the assault was committed upon a “retail worker.” Elevating an entire class to a level just below emergency workers and police officers will undoubtedly increase the criminalization of more Black and Brown New Yorkers. Despite the absence of data showing the incidence of injury to retail workers as being higher than that of other “classes,” this knee-jerk reaction to a problem whose existence is far from certain was pushed through the final negotiation.
• The budget enacted a new class A misdemeanor, PL 165.66 “Fostering the Sale of Stolen Goods.” This provision criminalizes utilizing the internet and any public or private physical space for the sale of goods one knows or has reason to know were stolen. The new statute fails to recognize that such activity was already prohibited under PL 165.40 (Criminal Possession of Stolen Property). It further fails to address the degree to which this new provision will chill commerce, and where every “deal or sale” will have to be scrutinized for its propriety. Much
like PL 120.19, it seeks to address a problem that likely does not exist in the volume it was portrayed and was already being addressed by existing law.
• Most damaging, the budget amended PL 155.30 and allows for the “aggregating” of separate larceny amounts to equal felony thresholds if the thefts occur “pursuant to a common scheme or plan or a single, ongoing intent to deprive another or others of the property or to appropriate the property to the actor or another person.” If you’re having difficulty deciphering that word salad, you’re not alone. In a nutshell, it allows felony prosecution of a single or group of individual(s) for multiple non-felony thefts. The drafters of this new provision fail to understand that other crimes such as “conspiracy” already address this situation. This new legislation also implicated double jeopardy and due process concerns. The law fails to include a time limit in which these thefts must occur to be eligible for felony prosecution. While the law seeks to address “theft rings” it threatens to pull in other singular individuals who commit thefts due to mental illness, substance abuse or poverty.
• Finally, the budget adds 28 new Hate Crimes to PL 485.05(3). While NYSACDL abhors hate and stands resolutely with those who seek to eradicate hate crimes from society, criminal penalties will not have any effect in reducing hate and bias.
As usual all the provisions above fail to confront the actual causes of crime and to offer a remedy. Once again, they rely on the flawed premise that more criminal punishment equals more safety.
In a final blow to our efforts this year, and despite several Legislators terming it “theft,” the budget authorized the sweep of $234 million from the Indigent
Legal Services Fund. While $92 million of that is earmarked to cover ½ of the critically needed 18-b increase, the other $143 million is now available for other priorities that have zero to do with criminal defense and which have no other limitations. Depleting the fund in this manner threatens the future provision of competent defense on both the criminal and family court sides. Litigation may be needed to address in the near future.
As always, our work did not end with the passage of this budget. At the end of the session, we found ourselves once again fighting two extremely damaging proposals, both of which are driven by the NY Court of Appeals decision reversing the conviction of Harvey Weinstein.
The first proposal, A4992/S9276 (“Propensity Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases”) would have seen a dramatic departure from the process by which the prosecution could present evidence of prior uncharged acts of sexual misconduct under People v. Molineux. This amendment would have allowed the prosecution to present of evidence showing prior instances of uncharged sexual misconduct specifically for the purpose of proving propensity in a sexual assault case.
Obviously, this would have made the defense of these cases incredibly difficult, bordering on impossible. It would have further bogged down sexual assault trials, while “mini-trials” on prior uncharged acts were held to determine whether enough evidence existed to justify admission. It would have undone 123 years of jurisprudence on the issue of the admission of propensity evidence. The effects of such a law would have been devastating to the defense community and the clients they serve.
The second proposal , A1065A/S4555B (The “Rape Intoxication” law), would
Continued on page 23
Preparing, Organizing and Delivering a Closing Argument to Get a Two Word Verdict
The closing argument is a story. The story is a powerful method of communicating with an audience and can transcend barriers between the storyteller and listener. Stories capture the attention of the listener and set up neural pathways to critical thinking. I honed my techniques by listening to great storytellers while trying cases for 32 years. What follows are my observations of how to prepare, organize, and deliver closing arguments to build logical pathways to a two-word verdict.
By Steven Epstein, Esq. President NYSACDL
Prepare
The closing argument takes the most amount of time and energy to prepare because it encompasses every aspect of the trial. The trial grows from it. In jury selection we look for unbiased jurors who can be persuaded by the logic of our closing arguments. In opening statements, we offer a preview of the facts that form the basis of our closing arguments. During cross examination, we structure our questions into chapters to set up the closing ar-
guments. Each of these stages of the trial build pathways to the closing argument.
“The end is where we start from.”1 Start preparing your closing argument before any other part of the trial. Just like a vehicle navigation system, we must know where we are going before we choose the roads to follow. Once you know you want to argue in summation that your client did not knowingly possess drugs found in a backpack located in the backseat of the vehicle, you set up that argument by establishing on cross examination that the bag’s contents did not include anything connected with your client.
It is never too soon to begin preparing the closing argument. In fact, a thorough client interview is where the seedlings of closing arguments form. This is when we begin to learn the important facts and emotions, as we listen to our client’s account of what occurred, our minds commence building the story and our theory of the case.
Once you begin to prepare the closing argument, construct the theory of the case. A strong theory of the case will act as a foundation for preparing the components of the trial and a critical lens the jury will use to watch it unfold. It helps focus the storyteller on what details are important and what can be disregarded.. Most importantly it aids resonance through imagery, repetition and familiarity. The components of the theory of the case are the facts, the law and emotions.
Preparing the facts of your closing argument starts with assembling and digesting them. Gather your discovery. Review all police reports, prior testimony and evidence. Learn every prior statement of relevant witnesses and determine which are the facts that help you and which are the facts that hurt you. Which are the facts that no one challenges and which are the facts at the heart of your conflict. This process must continue throughout the trial. Pay attention to the facts as they are revealed and pay careful attention to memorable moments that can be revisited in closing arguments.
There is a critical connection between the facts and the law. The facts alone are meaningless without legal instructions. The law instructs the jury in using the facts to resolve the conflict. The role of the Judge in this process is important.
The Judge is the principal authority figure in the courtroom. This becomes evident from the start. The Judge, speaking from an elevated platform, wearing a robe, is the first to speak, telling the jury what the trial concerns and what the jury will be asked to do. The Judge tells potential jurors who can leave and who must stay, when they can go home and what time they must arrive the next day. The jury is expected to listen to and obey the Judge. We demand and expect the jury to follow the Judge’s instructions on the law. The Judge is the authority on the law and ap -
peal to authority is an important conflict resolution technique.
An appeal to authority relies on the respect given to an authority figure that bypasses critical thinking. The essence is, accept this as true because I said so. Critical thinkers may reject this type of edict. Instead a critical thinker might need to be persuaded to follow the Judge’s rules. This resistance allows the defense attorney to argue the presumption of innocence and the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standards. Law and facts are only part of the theory of the case.
To persuade a jury to act they must feel the emotions that will move them into action. People act because they feel they should, not because they are told to follow instructions. A child does not eat
Organize
It is hard to get people’s attention and even harder to keep it. When we communicate with a jury we face many obstacles, not the least of which is the jury’s lack of concern about the outcome of the trial. This makes it important to develop a strategy to get their attention and keep it. That strategy begins with structure and organization.
When organizing the closing argument “start at the very beginning, a very fine place to start.”2 The primacy effect is the tendency of people to remember the first piece of information they encounter better than the information presented later. Many lawyers will waste this opportunity on pleasantries that make themselves feel comfortable, such as “good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you
“When one takes enough time to care and understand the human beings enmeshed in [our court system] we see that each case is different and calls for a highly tailored, careful and compassionate response.”
NY Court of Appeals Chief Judge Rowan Wilson
their peas simply because their mother commands it; the child eats peas because they fear the ramifications of refusing to act in the manner commanded by their authority figure. They are taught to follow appeals to authority not simply because of the status of the authority figure, but because of the emotional reaction to what will occur if the authority figure is not obeyed. They eat their peas because they do not want the consequences that result from not obeying the command. The jury must feel the need to follow the law.
for serving….” Do not waste the opportunity of the primacy effect on pleasantries unless your goal is to get the jury talking about how polite you were. This is the time to give them a short statement, containing your theory of the case, what you will ask them to do and why they should do it. Repetition aids resonance and resonance furthers the power of persuasion. For this reason, you should start and end your closing arguments with theory of case.
Don’t bury the lead. Ask for what you want up front. A criminal defense attor-
Continued on next page
Preparing, Organizing and Delivering
Continued from previous page
ney focuses their preparation with one goal in mind, a two-word verdict. Tell the jury that is what you want up front. How you do that is very important.
Asking for a not guilty verdict unnecessarily uses the evil word guilty and does it through a negative statement. I like to focus on where we start, the presumption of innocence and that the jury carries that with them throughout the trial, even as they enter the jury room. They start on our team and stay there. Do not be afraid of using the word innocent, that is the best description of any person accused. Whichever way you choose to do it, avoid using the evil word guilt.
The most important part of how you start your closing argument is the emotion you identified in your theory of the case. Emotion compels action. Consider one of the most successful advertising campaigns, “Just Do It.” It drips with emotion. Nike understood that getting people to feel the need to exercise will get them to do it. You can and should do this in a closing argument by word choice, internalized emotions, and the way you use your body and voice. All of which will be discussed in this article.
As you proceed through your closing argument make sure it is well organized. A disorganized argument is difficult to follow and understand. A well organized and structured argument is easier to follow and far more persuasive. It is easier to accomplish this goal if you critically choose what arguments to make. The dilution effect teaches that listeners will devalue the strength of one argument when considering another.
When possible, organize your thoughts into groups of three. The rule of three is a storytelling principle that suggests people better understand concepts, situations, and ideas in groups of three. 3 Whatever the organization is for the clos-
ing argument make it clear to the jury and remind them as you progress from one segment to another:
• I am going to talk with you about A, B and C.
• I have now talked with you about A so I will move onto B.
• I have now talked to you about A and B so I will move onto C.
• As promised, I have now talked to you about A, B and C.
This may seem a bit like “Dick and Jane.” There is a reason “Dick and Jane” was written that way.
The structure should end with a clear explanation of why the jury should do what you are asking them to do. Emotion alone is not enough; winning arguments use logical reasoning.
One of the most persuasive forms of logical reasoning is the syllogism. A syllogism is a form of logical reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given premises, each of which shares a term with the conclusion and shares a common term that is not present in the conclusion. An example of a syllogism is as follows:
• All members of NYSACDL are lawyers (major premise).
• Sally is a member of NYSACDL (minor premise).
• Therefore, Sally is …a lawyer (conclusion).
The power of a syllogism in your argument is that establishing the major and minor premises invites the listener to draw the conclusion on their own. This makes the argument resonate powerfully.
The major premise in a trial syllogism is often established by the court during the jury instructions. All that remains is establishing the minor premise during the trial and once done, a conclusion unfolds.
An example in a possession of a controlled substance trial may be as follows:
• A person knowingly possesses a drug when he is aware he is in possession of the drug (major premise).
• Gerald was not aware that he was in possession of the drug (minor premise).
• Therefore, Gerald did not knowingly possess a drug (conclusion).
The true conflict in every criminal trial is identical: has the prosecutor proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? The closing arguments answer this question by identifying facts which when applied to the law, give rise to logical conclusions that build pathways to the resolution of the conflict in their client’s favor. It helps to anticipate how those pathways are traveled by the jury.
I recall my first closing argument as if it were yesterday. I spent countless hours preparing. As I delivered it, I was emotionally invested and as it ended, I returned to my seat exhausted and thrilled that I survived. The prosecutor gave their arguments, the Judge instructed the jury on the law and then it happened; the jury vanished. Deliberations began. I sat, reviewed my notes and recounted in my mind what I said in my closing argument and then it hit me; there was something I forgot to mention. Remarkably they would not allow me in the deliberation room to say it. Wouldn’t it be great if we were allowed in? Instead, we should anticipate how the deliberations will play out and prepare our arguments accordingly. Simulate the discussion in your mind and by doing so you can use language that will help point the discussion in your client’s favor; for example, “I am sure you will ask yourselves questions. How did the drugs get in the car?” Answer that question and they are likely to follow your lead.
The placement of the jury instructions at the end of a trial gives it critical importance. The information presented at the end of a learning episode tends to be retained better than information presented in the middle. Despite its placement in a position of importance and the Court’s implicit authority, it cannot always be expected that a jury will listen to or apply the law. This is of critical importance when considering how to incorporate the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
In closing arguments criminal defense attorneys tend to resist leaning on the presumption of innocence and the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. They fear the natural reaction of the jury, that the client is guilty, but it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We as criminal defense attorneys know these rules are fundamental principles to a criminal trial and should not be ignored. The jury must be taught they are the foundation of our system of justice. They must follow them because they should and fear what may happen if they do not. It may be helpful to present this portion of the summation in a manner that portrays the jury as the hero in a heroic journey, one of the classic models of storytelling.
Delivery
when to move. Lawyers perseverate over what words to speak and how to organize them yet neglect to consider at all where they will stand or how they will move. This makes them move about without purpose; pacing back and forth to control the energy that limits them. This can be best avoided by using that energy and planning when and how to move about the space. In theater this is called block-
volume, and pauses. When used effectively they can capture and move the attention of a jury much the way a spotlight focuses and then moves the attention of an audience. If you speak with emotion this should come naturally.
“What I think is something necessary to be a great criminal lawyer is something I think women already have, a desire to understand people and human relationships.”
Criminal Defense Attorney Leslie Abramson in a speech supporting female lawyers at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, 2015
A carpenter handles a hammer, a tailor a needle, and a doctor a stethoscope. Each has a tool that helps them apply their trade. During closing arguments, the trial attorney uses voice and body to effectively deliver a closing argument.
Many lawyers fear the use of the body during the closing argument for one simple reason, they do not plan how and
ing. Blocking is the art of how we stand, where we stand, how we move and where we move. The use of our body and body language helps convey messages. Move to the witness stand when retelling an important piece of testimony. Close the space to the prosecutors table when arguing they have failed to meet their burden of proof. Stand beside and touch your client to portray your client as a human being, not some amorphous character. Use the exhibits entered into evidence or even better create visual aids that help you tell a story. These visual aids are very helpful to change the focus of the jury. It is one thing to tell a story, it is another to show an audience how it is told. You can do so much, but it starts with planning how to use your body and the space of the courtroom.
Our voice can be utilized to capture and move the attention of the audience. The tools we use include pitch, pace, rhythm,
The emotion of the story is important and equally important are the emotions of the storyteller. You, the storyteller, must feel the emotions you want to convey. It is easy to recognize a person who speaks with emotion. The emotion must be recognized and then internally processed to what actors call an inner monologue. They are constantly considering who they are, where they are, what they are doing and why they are doing it. That coupled with recognizing the dream response you want from your audience will help you emote. The emotion is not only to be felt while speaking, but also equally important in the space between. Be sure to continue to feel the emotions of the moment, they do not turn on and off like a light switch. The worst thing a storyteller can do when delivering a closing argument is to read. The eyes tell the story of the heart.
The words you choose are an important tool. The English language offers many ways to say the same thing. Words convey meaning. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not say he had an idea, he had a dream. Emotive words evoke a strong emotional response. Dr. King went on to describe Mississippi as a “state sweltering with the heat of injustice.” These are examples of word choice itself conveying emotion and meaning.
Be sure to use language that is familiar to the jury. One of my early mentors, Terrence McCarthy, would say talk to a jury
Continued on page 22
NYSACDL & NYSACDL Foundation
Annual Dinner 2025
January 17, 2024
Cipriani 25 Broadway, New York, NY
Guests of Honor
Hon. Rowan D. Wilson
Hon. William Brennan Award for Outstanding Jurist
Robert G. Wells, Esq.
Hon. Thurgood S. Marshall Award for Outstanding Criminal Practitioner
A24 Media - Sing Sing (Feature Film) Justice Through The Arts Award
Jessica Horani, Esq.
Installation as 2025 NYSACDL President
Steven Epstein, Esq.
Recognition as 2024 NYSACDL President
New York State Court of Appeals
Hon. William Brennan Award for Outstanding Jurist
NYSACDL has selected New York State Court of Appeals Chief Judge Rowan Wilson as the recipient of the 2025 Hon. William Brennan Award for Outstanding Jurist. Since first becoming a Judge on the Court of Appeals Judge Wilson has embodied the values, approach, and dedication to those who appear before the Court that this organization seeks in every Judge in this State. Judge Wilson has consistently issued opinions and dissents that demonstrate his commitment to fairness and excellence of representation in our Courts. As the Chief Judge of the Court, he has used his leadership position to ensure that all people have access to justice, and he has focused on the challenging issues presented by a lack of resources throughout our system.
Not only has Judge Wilson worked tirelessly outside of the spotlight to make it a reality, but he has used his position to state his belief that people facing criminal charges deserve not just competent but excellent representation. There is no better voice to demonstrate why Judge Wilson is so deserving of this award than his own. In People v. Watkins, Judge Wilson stated:
"All defendants deserve better than bare constitutional sufficiency. They deserve highquality representation—thorough, informed advocacy that fully vindicates their rights and minimizes the chance of wrongful conviction. We should want indigent defense to be funded so that counsel can routinely take the types of steps my dissenting colleagues highlight....Because criminal proceedings often deprive defendants of years of liberty, we can and should expect not only representation that meets the constitutional minimum, but high-quality representation—the type of representation we would hope for if the accused were a family member or friend. Defense attorneys should have the time and resources to fully investigate cases; consult with clients,
supervisors, and non-legal staff; participate in ongoing training; and access up-to-date research materials. There should be no question of whether the lawyer will meet the constitutional minimum—only whether the lawyer can put on the best possible case for her client."
(People v. Watkins, 2024 Slip Op 02842, J. Wilson concurring)
The Honorable Rowan D. Wilson, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, was born in Pomona, California, and grew up in Berkeley, California. He received his A.B. degree from Harvard College in 1981, and his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School in 1984. He was admitted to the bar of the State of California in 1985, and the bar of the State of New York in 1987. From 1984 to 1986, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable James R. Browning, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, California. In 1986, he joined the firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York City as an associate, and was elected to partnership there in 1991, in which position he continued until February 2017. His practice encompassed a wide variety of matters, including antitrust, intellectual property, securities and commonlaw fraud, contract, labor and employment, civil rights and first amendment issues. On January 15, 2017, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo nominated Judge Wilson to serve as an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, and the New York State Senate confirmed his nomination on February 6, 2017. On April 10, 2023, Governor Kathy Hochul nominated Judge Wilson to serve as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the State of New York. The New York State Senate confirmed his nomination on April 18, 2023. While in private practice, Judge Wilson served on the boards of several charitable and not-for-profit organizations and handled numerous pro bono matters.
Sing Sing, Feature Film (A24 Media)
Justice Through the Arts Award
Directed by: Greg Kwedar
Written by: Greg Kwedar & Clint Bentley Award accepted by: Sing Sing Actor, Legal Activist and Exoneree Jon-Adrien ‘JJ’ Velazquez
NYSACDL’s Justice Through the Arts Award honors those who find unique ways to tell the stories of justice-impacted individuals outside of courtrooms who share the artistic talents of those individuals with the world, and who work to effect meaningful change within the system through an artistic vision. We are thrilled to present this year’s Justice Through the Arts Award to a film that more than fits the bill; Sing Sing from A24 Media, directed by Greg Kwedar,
written by Greg Kwedar and Clint Bentley and starring Colman Domingo as John ‘Divine G’ Whitfield and Clarence ‘Divine Eye’ Maclin as himself. Accepting the award for Sing Sing is Jon-Adrian ‘JJ’ Velazquez, a legal reform activist and recently exonerated individual who acted in the film alongside a tour de force ensemble cast of both professional actors and other formerly incarcerated individuals; many of them alumni of the Rehabilitation Through the Arts (RTA) program.
The film is based on the true story of two men who met through the RTA program at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and the journey that they and their entire theatre troupe take when putting on a production of ‘Breakin’ the Mummy’s Code’ inside the walls of the infamous prison. The play within the film was written by Brent Buell, a playwright and theatre director who had volunteered with the RTA program at Sing Sing for over ten years and who introduced John ‘Divine G’ Whitfield and Clarence ‘Divine Eye’ Maclin to the filmmakers at the genesis of the film.
Director Greg Kwedar’s inspiration for the film came in March 2016, when he began helping a friend to produce a short documentary inside a maximum-security prison in Wichita, KS. It was the first time he had ever been inside such a facility. While passing through the gallery, Kwedar turned to his right and saw a gentleman in his cell, raising a rescue dog, part of a program found in a number of prisons that paired rescue dogs with incarcerated people. “It’s a rehabilitation program for both the animals and the men,” Kwedar recalls. “My whole world flipped upside down, just in that half-second, passing a cell.” The humanity and intimacy on display between man and animal surpassed stereotypes and moved Kwedar to investigate further what type of reforms were in process at prisons across America.
That night, in his hotel room, he Googled, “Who is doing things differently in prison?” and read for the first time about RTA. The program had created remarkable results for its participants: while the national rate for prisoners returning to incarceration was over 60%, less than 5% of RTA graduates ever returned to prison. Kwedar discovered a 2005 Esquire article, “The Sing Sing Follies,” written by John H. Richardson, about an original time-traveling musical comedy, entitled Breakin’ the Mummy’s Code, that the men at Sing Sing wrote and staged through RTA.
Says Kwedar, “I thought that perhaps this might be the right jumping off point to tell a story that gives people a deeper understanding about the full capacity of some of the individuals behind bars who are otherwise stereotyped or forgotten.” As he and Bentley researched the film they were introduced to two men who participated in RTA and who formed the basis for their story.
One of those men was John “Divine G” Whitfield who was arrested for a homicide that he did not commit and spent decades in various prisons before landing at Sing Sing. While there he joined a group that eventually would become the RTA program, tapping into his teenage talents and aspirations, as well as his newfound interest in writing.
They also met Clarence “Divine Eye” Maclin, a formerly feared man at Sing Sing who stumbled upon the RTA program during his period of incarceration. In the film we see the emotional internal struggle of Divine G, fighting for his release from prison, while mentoring the tough newcomer Divine Eye as he evolves from threatening lone wolf to a gifted stage actor. As both men collaborated
with the filmmakers they were given story credits for their part in helping to craft an emotionally nuanced and authentic story and the filmmakers eventually asked Maclin to play himself in the movie.
The filmmakers dedication to creating the film with the creative involvement of RTA alumni continued as they were determined to fill the cast of the film with the people who had lived it. It wasn’t just a philosophical choice; it was a recognition of the immense talent and pathos of the alumni of RTA. With Sing Sing, “we knew we wanted a few professionals in this, but the majority of the ensemble needed to be actual alumni of the program. And we had confidence in that, because we knew the talent was there.”
being released through executive clemency in September 2021.
Accepting the Justice Through the Arts Award for Sing Sing is one of those cast members who was formerly incarcerated, Jon-Adrian ‘JJ’ Velazquez. Velazquez had been wrongfully imprisoned, spending 15 of his more than 23 years at Sing Sing, before
Velazquez’s story is emblematic of what justice through the arts really means. He not only acted in the film, he has been an incredibly vocal and active legal reform activist, not only for himself but on behalf of others, earning the moniker ‘One-Man Innocence Project’ from Dateline Producer Dan Slepian who worked with Velazquez and featured his fight for justice along with others in a four part series, The Sing Sing Chronicles which aired November 2024. Velazquez was finally exonerated in his own case in a Manhattan courtroom in late September 2024, with Judge Abraham Clott also recognizing his ‘extraordinary achievements’ while incarcerated.
As Sing Sing continues to garner critical awards and nominations we are honored to bestow upon it our own Justice Through the Arts Award. We are especially gratified that Jon-Adrien ‘JJ’ Velazquez is able to accept the award on the film’s behalf and to recognize his own incredible contribution to the cause of justice, for himself and others.
(L-R) Colman Domingo, Clarence Maclin Credit: Pat Scola
(L-R) David ‘Dap’ Giraudy, Jon-Adrian ‘JJ’ Velazquez, Sean ‘Dino’ Johnson, James ‘Big E’ Williams Credit: Dominic Leon
Robert G. Wells
The Honorable Thurgood S. Marshall Award for Outstanding Criminal Practitioner
Robert G. Wells (“Rob”) is a federal and state criminal defense practitioner with over forty-five years of experience in the United States District Courts and Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as in all levels of State courts. He has been recognized by Super Lawyers for many consecutive years. He cherishes his earlier training at Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College and shares that education with colleagues at every opportunity.
In the same tradition as past recipients of the Marshall Award, colleagues like Terrence Connors, Ben Crump, Tina Luongo, Tony Ricco, and Gerry Spence, Rob has devoted his career to indefatigably fighting for justice. His clients always come first. He is a past-president of this Association, and remains active as a leader of CLE training, legislative advocacy, and our Prosecutorial and Judicial Conduct Commission. He has also been published in Atticus magazine.
Many of you recognize Rob because of the countless CLE presentations he has conducted for NYSACDL, the New York State Annual Trial Academy, and many other bar associations, on subjects including Direct Examination, Cross Examination, Electronic Evidence Presentation, and Sentencing Advocacy. The feedback from attendees at his presentations include commentary such as “I learned more than at any other CLE I’ve attended,” “a wealth of practical tips I can immediately put to use in my practice,” and “his grasp of the subject matter can only come from years of courtroom trial experience.”
Rob has served as an instructor for the United States Courts, teaching lawyers in San Francisco, Dallas, Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago and Atlanta. He is the advisor to pro se litigants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and for the Federal Court Bar Association for the Northern District Court. He is the Northern District CJA Representative to the National Criminal Justice Act Panel. Rob has led trainings for the FBI, the Board of Certified Fraud Examiners, and the New York Bankers Association.
Rob has not only gained the respect of his clients and his peers, but the civility and the skills he employs in his criminal defense practice have earned him the respect of judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers alike.
In recognition of Rob’s innumerable successes in the courtroom and his mentorship to us all in furtherance of improving the quality of our representation, NYSACDL is pleased to present the Thurgood S. Marshall Award for Outstanding Criminal Practitioner to Rob Wells.
Report from NCDC
In June 2024 I attended the National Criminal Defense College’s Trial Practice Institute, (NCDC), a two two-week trial training program in the suburbs of Washington D.C. I could not have participated without the generous support of NYSACDL’s Jack T. Litman Twelve Angry Men Scholarship. As a young solo practitioner, taking two weeks away from my casework was extremely challenging, however NCDC’s unique intensive and hands-on training was worth every minute. NCDC provided an important opportunity to not only receive cutting edge trial training, but also mentorship and community.
NCDC attracts brilliant faculty that most of us recognize from popular online training programs and see on stage at national trainings. NCDC is an in-person training from national leading experts in criminal defense, there is the rare opportunity to practice and workshop with giants of the criminal defense bar. We were divided into small groups organized by experience level for the entirety of the two-week program, and trained actors played clients, witnesses, and potential jurors. An energetic professional acting coach led us through breathing exercises and intentional body movement to refine our skills. Each phase of a trial was recorded, beginning from the initial client intake interview all the way to closing arguments. NCDC provided a supportive opportunity to explore trial techniques and strategies outside of the high stakes of a real courtroom, while developing coping strategies for stage fright. The program does not teach a singular formula, but instead prescribes guideposts, making space for our unique skills and personalities to enhance the representation of clients. This is not only taught in lectures, but also demonstrated by the rich diversity of faculty demonstrating their own styles and creating the space to develop one’s own style.
NCDC encouraged me to bring my unique personal and professional experiences into my practice. I hold myself to a constant pursuit of excellence. NCDC was the next step in my journey to expand my trial skills. The experience taught me important trial skills, but most powerfully it helped me realize that who I am and how I got here is the most powerful tool I bring to this essential work.
During the second week I attended the Lawyers of Color dinner. This is a special event that had a profound impact on me. Like many biracial people I struggle with my identity especially as a woman working in the criminal legal system. Because of my identity struggle, I almost passed up the invitation to attend. At the dinner, the brilliant lawyers of color in the room reminded me that we all share the same struggle with feelings
By Emilee A. Sahli
of belonging. The dinner, a long-standing tradition, was made all the more special by our host and NCDC Dean Ms. Natasha Perdew Silas. Everyday she made every attendee feel welcomed, included, and seen. The vulnerability of intentional community shared by everyone in that room felt like a sacred ritual. The experience was a reminder that community is a verb.
The criminal defense community is a special club that is not defined by accolades or accomplishments, but rather by the feeling of recognition and support from our colleagues because the criminal defense bar gives back to the community. NCDC is one of those special places where this comradery is shared generously. The solidarity that exists among criminal defense attorneys not only advances the interests of our clients in a brutal adversarial system but also makes the work more rewarding.
At the end of the program, the group we spent the two weeks bonding with created a personal video. This long-standing tradition of NCDC is what alumni refer to as “the video”. Students are encouraged to wait to review “the video” until back at the office and to return to it as a source of inspiration on challenging days. This is a rite of passage for those who have attended NCDC. I recently spoke to an alumnus whose eyes filled with warmth and light as they recalled their own video from many years ago. The sentimentality of this tradition continues to ring true and binds us together.
I rewatched my video to write this article. It is filled with nearly five minutes of words of recognition and affirmation that we as colleagues rarely have the platform to share with each other. Sadly, the space I most often see this type of recognition and affection generously shared in the legal community are in the strings of messages responding to the passing of beloved colleagues. I am determined to change that, and I invite us all to do the same.
Thank you, again, to all those whose support make the NYSACDL Foundation’s Jack T. Litman Twelve Angry Men Scholarship possible.
Emilee A. Sahli founded Sahli Law, PLLC in July 2021 after a decade of working in criminal defense firms focused on complex e-discovery in federal criminal cases. She recently completed the Eastern District of New York’s CJA mentoring program and is appointed as associate counsel in criminal cases in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. She is also an 18B Discovery Specialist.
Preparing, Organizing and Delivering
Continued from page 15
like you are in a bar. Be sure to be with the jury, not apart. Do not ask witnesses to explain something to the jury, have them explain it to us. You want to be part of, not above, the jury.
Always remember, a trial happens live, it is not recorded. Things happen during the trial that must be incorporated into your closing arguments. Also keep in mind that things will happen while you deliver the closing argument, recognize that these are important moments. You cannot simulate how you or the jury will feel in the emotions of the moment until you are there. This is why preparation is so important, you must be ready and willing to adapt. What is important is the closing argument you give a jury, not the one you prepared, they should and will be different.
Conclusion
There are some common themes which you should consider using in your closing argument.
Address the bad. Aristotle’s first principle of argumentation was the inoculation strategy. When you sit down, the prosecutor rises. They will focus on their strengths. While you cannot attack everything, you can anticipate them and choose what to preempt. A theme that often helps me is asking the jury to examine the evidence in its proper context. It often helps move the attention from the bad to the good.
difference between facts and opinions in the closing arguments so that the jury can question the foundation for those opinions.
We have the advantage of going first when delivering our closing argument and the disadvantage of not being able to rebut the prosecutor. Discuss it with the jury and invite the jury to consider what arguments you may have made when they are listening to the prosecutor. This makes me the underdog and invites them to look at the case from the defense perspective. If you are comfortable with this, invite the prosecutor to answer three questions that you spent the night trying to answer. Be sure there are no good answers to these questions. The questions are fact specific, such as why did the police not voucher the pipe they now say was in the car?
The secret to a powerful closing argument is knowing how to prepare, organize, and deliver it effectively. Be sure to end with the theory of case, which if structured properly invites the jury to apply the facts to the law and come to the only conclusion that justice requires. That verdict has two words!
1 T.S Elliot, Four Quartets, Harcourt, 1943.
2 Do-Re-Mi, The Sound of Music, Rogers & Hammerstein (1965).
3 Barry, Patrick, The Rule of Three, Legal Comm. & Rhetoric 15, University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository (2018): 247-261
Allow the jury to acquit your client and feel proud. Most jurors like the police, appreciate what they do and respect them for doing it. You must offer the jury a reason why their two-word verdict does not mean the police were wrong. There are many approaches to this such as explaining the difference between probable and beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately the officer’s opinion is just an opinion that can be wrong. We must address the
Legislative Committee
Continued from page 11
have fundamentally changed the standard for proving consent under CPL 130 from “physically helpless” to a far more confusing and convoluted standard. The new standard would have made it functionally impossible to discern whether someone was incapacitated before engaging in sexual relations. In an effort to close the so-called “voluntary intoxication loophole,” this bill would have upended the entire concept of consent by persons under the influence. While it is arguably unconstitutional for vagueness, we need to ensure that more thought and study is accomplished before this potentially devastating change is made.
As these bills were pushed to the forefront in the last days before the end of the 2024 session, NYSACDL and other defenders mobilized to address them. Memos in opposition were circulated and re-circulated. Those who opposed the bills made countless calls to legislators and conducted numerous conferences with legislators both for and against. NYSACDL Past-President Alice Fontier gave a floor speech during the Caucus deriding the Molineux proposal. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers submitted submitted a letter in support of our opposition to the “Rape Intoxication” bill. We endured many sleepless nights.
After days of advocacy, and tense moments before the close of session, we received word late Friday evening June 7th that both bills were defeated in committee and would not pass the Assembly. Once again, the New York State Defender community showed what could be accomplished when working in concert. An extremely proud moment for all involved.
Finally, as the session came to a merciful end on Friday, Defenders and NYSACDL specially, received one final nod for their efforts. “Jury of Our Peers”
(A1432-A-Aubry / S206-A-Cleare), a priority item of NYSACDL, passed the Assembly after having passed the Senate earlier in the week. This bill, sponsored by retiring Assembly member Jeffrion Aubry of Queens, lifts the felony conviction bar on NYS jury service. This law, if signed by the Governor, would permit thousands of currently ineligible citizens to serve on juries across the state, substantially diversifying the jury pool. We are extremely grateful to Assembly member Aubry for his years of service in support of our initiatives and we are extremely grateful for this last gift before his retirement. That bill remains in “pending status” awaiting Governor Hochul’s signature. We have been in touch with her Counsel’s office regularly on this bill and hope to see her signature before the end of the year.
As we move into the 2025 Legislative Cycle, Our Committee met bi-weekly since August to develop our priorities for the upcoming year. In addition to the priorities mentioned above that remain on our list, we are adding the following priorities to the list: Opposition to “Anonymous Jurors” Bill. S6239 (Thomas) A7495(Lavine)
NYSACDL strongly opposes S6239/ A7495, an act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to protective orders for juries, permitting the court to withhold the names and addresses of jurors in certain proceedings and setting factors for determining good cause to issue protective orders for juries. Adequate remedies currently exist to protect juror identities. Substantial prejudice will result if the accused and their counsel are unable to receive information essential to selecting fair and impartial jurors.
SAFTE (Safe and Fair Traffic Enforcement) – (Senate 7111A, Sen. Hoylman Sigal, co-sponsor Sen. Salazar)
Study after study demonstrates that Black and Brown people are stopped for low-level, non-safety traffic violations with greater frequency, and among those stopped, there are also significant racial disparities in who is searched. S7111A would address this problem by barring police from stopping individuals solely on the basis of specific listed non-safety traffic violations, require statewide collection, analysis and reporting of data on stops including racial demographics, add protections for those subjected to purported consent searches, bar racial profiling while providing for procedural remedies, and bar stops for violation level warrants.
We expect to begin our advocacy in support of all priority measures in advance of the next cycle in January 2025. As we move into the next session, we remain mindful as always of the continued work that needs to be accomplished. Our committee will be hard at work advocating for positive change.
Our outstanding committee of dedicated members, together with our diligent Executive Director Jennifer Van Ort and terrific lobbyist, Jennifer Richardson, will continue to fight for equity and justice in the criminal legal system.
As always, if you have suggestions or proposals for legislation which enhances the goals of the Committee and this organization, please let us know. All suggestions are appreciated and will be considered.
Finally, we are always on the lookout for new members to join our team; many hands make light work. If you are interested in coming aboard, please reach out. We would be honored to have you.
The Defenders Circle is a donation program that benefits New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NYSACDL) members, seminars, and programs. NYSACDL has experienced tremendous growth over the past several years in membership, seminar attendance, advocacy efforts and more.
Defenders Circle members play a crucial role in ensuring that NYSACDL maintains its success and strength as the leading criminal defense organization in New York State. Donations starting at $100 are included in the Defenders Circle. Among other benefits, Defenders Circle members will be showcased on the NYSACDL website and in the quarterly Atticus publication.
Thank you to the 2024 Defenders Circle!
As of 12/16/2024
Leaders
Champions
John Ingrassia
Alan Lewis
Marvin E. Schechter
Wayne C. Bodden
Sam Braverman
Lori Cohen
Joseph R. DeMatteo
Karen L. Dippold
Michael G. Dowd
Drew DuBrin
Phillip Hamilton
Steven Epstein
Gerald Lefcourt
Stephen Preziosi
Sherry Levin Wallachr
Supporters
James P. Harrington
Michael D. Horn
Mitchell E. Ignatoff
Randall F. Inniss
Seymour W. James
Andrew Karpf
Andrew Kossover
Frank Kelly
Pavel Krut
Robert P. Leighton
Mark J. Mahoney
Aaron Mysliwiec
Grainne O’Neill
Jill Paperno
Kyle Sheahen
Richard Spivack
Colleagues
Mario F. Gallucci
Jessica Horani
Charles Kee
Isabelle Kirshner
Michael McDermott
Lawrence Sykes
Emily Trott
Jennifer Ciulla Van Ort
John S. Wallenstein
Mark A. Young
CLE
MIKE
BAKER
& ANDRE VITALE, CO-CHAIRS, CLE COMMITTEE
2025 Seminars
Free Member Webinar: The Client Interview-Starting on the Right Path Together
Monday, January 6, 2025, 1:00pm–2:00pm Online Via Zoom
Law @ Lunch Webinar: The Truth, Potentially Nothing But the Truth, But Def not the Whole Truth – Circumstantial Evidence Cases and Avoiding Wrongful Convictions
Thursday, January 23, 2025, 1:00pm–2:00pm Online Via Zoom
Law @ Lunch Webinar: What You Need To Know About Immigration Law in 2025 Thursday, February 27, 2025, 1:00pm–2:00pm Online Via Zoom
Cross to Kill 2025 Friday, March 21, 2025 Manhattan
Regional Criminal Defense Seminar: Lake Placid 2025 Friday, May 2, 2025 Lake Placid, NY
Defending A Sex Case Friday, May 16, 2025 Buffalo, NY
NYSACDL is noted for our innovative, interesting and informative CLE programs, which we present at various locations around the state each year.
Seminar registration & information available at: www.nysacdl.org
Questions?
Call the NYSACDL office at: (518) 443-2000 or email jlvanort@nysacdl.org
Evidence Seminar Friday, June 6, 2025 White Plains, NY
Racial Justice Seminar Friday, September 19, 2025 Manhattan, NY
Regional Criminal Defense Seminar: Albany 2025 Friday, October 3, 2025 Albany, NY
Superstar Trial Seminar 2025 Friday, October 24, 2025 Buffalo, NY
Regional Criminal Defense Seminar: Binghamton 2025 Friday, November 14, 2025 Binghamton, NY
Weapons for the Firefight 2025 Friday, December 5, 2025 Buffalo, NY
Join the Committee
NYSACDL standing committees are chaired by members in good standing who are appointed by the President. Committee membership is a rewarding opportunity for members to network with colleagues throughout the state and to explore various issues in depth. Members are invited to join committees to further the important work of our association. If you are interested in joining a standing committee (listed below), please contact the committee chair or the Executive Director’s office: jlvanort@nysacdl.org, 518-443-2000, for more information.
AMICUS CURIAE COMMITTEE
Chair: Stephen Preziosi
Vice Chair: Claudia Trupp
Members: Alan Lewis, Nathaniel Marmur, Timothy Murphy, Donald Rehkopf, Claudia Trupp, Richard Willstatter
ANNUAL DINNER COMMITTEE
Chair: Jessica Horani
Vice Chair: Kevin Stadelmaier
Members: Steve Epstein, Alice Fontier, Renee Hill, Andy Kossover, Yung-Mi Lee, Lindsay Lewis, Brian Melber, Claudia Trupp
BY-LAWS AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
Chair: Brian Melber
Members: Yung-Mi Lee, Alan Lewis, Timothy Murphy
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT TASK FORCE
Chair: Richard Willstatter
Members: Joseph DeMatteo, Alexis Epstein, Steven Epstein, Allegra Glashausser, Michelle Grant, Timothy Hoover, Seymour James, Jr., Hon. David Lewis (Retired), Prof. Michael Mushlin, James Neuman, Eli Northrup, Norman Reimer, Eric Seiff, Martin Tankleff, Sarena Townsend, Howard Weiner
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Chairs: Michael Baker, Andre Vitale
Vice Chair: Renate Lunn
Members: Samuel Braverman, Lori Cohen, Steven Epstein, John Ingrassia, Andy Kossover, Jessica Kulpit, Yung-Mi Lee, Peter Mitchell, Jill Paperno, Adam Shlahet, Kevin Stadelmaier, John S. Wallenstein, Rob Wells
FEDERAL PRACTICE / WHITE
COLLAR
CRIME COMMITTEE
Chair: Samuel Braverman
Vice Chair: Grainne O’Neill
Members: Lance Clarke, Alan Lewis, Donald Thompson, John Wallenstein, Richard Willstatter FINANCE COMMITTEE
Chair: Samuel Braverman
Members: Steven Epstein, Seymour James, Alan Lewis, Kevin Stadelmaier
JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEEE
Chair: Alan S. Lewis
Vice Chair: Jill Paperno
Members: Derek Andrews, Samuel Braverman, Xavier Donaldson, Alice Fontier, Jamal Johnson, Greg Lubow, Nathaniel Marmur, Timothy Murphy, Donald Thompson, Claudia Trupp
JUSTICE COURTS COMMITTEE
Chair: Greg Lubow
Vice Chair: Laura Fiorenza
Members: Jenny Cheung, Clare Degnan, Thomas Donaldson, Lucien Elliott, Steven Epstein, John Ingrassia, Mark Juda, Robert Knightly, Greg Magnell, Dennis Nave, Ira Pesserilo, Alvin Spitzer, Joseph Tock, Michael Viscosi, Menachem White, Sandra Williams
LAWYERS STRIKE FORCE
ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
Chair: Steve Epstein
Vice Chair: Jessica Horani
Members: Samuel Braverman, Jill Paperno, Donald Rehkopf, Richard Willstatter
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Chair: Kevin Stadelmaier
Vice Chair: Yung-Mi Lee
Members: Matthew Bova, Laura Fiorenza, Alice Fontier, Andrew Kossover, Leanne Lapp, Greg Lubow, Amy Marion, Michael McDermott, Brian Melber, Eli Northrup, Jill Paperno, Sherry Levin Wallach
MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE
Chairs: Ilona Coleman, Jill Paperno
Vice Chair: Kendea Johnson
Members: Stephanie Batcheller, Samuel Braverman, Jonathan Cohn, Ilona Coleman, Steven Epstein Laura Fiorenza, Jessica Horani, Jamal Johnson, Leanne Lapp, Alan Lewis, Greg Lubow, Renate Lunn, Brian Melber, Grainne O'Neill, Hilary Rogers, Frederick Sosinsky, Claudia Trupp, Richard Willstatter
MOTOR VEHICLE ISSUES COMMITTEE
Chair: Randall Inniss
Members: Derek Andrews, David Arpino, Jonathan Cohn, Steven Epstein, Dan Friedman, William Furber, Zev Goldstein, Michael Gutman, Barry Jacobson, Andrew Kossover, Scott Lockwood, Greg Lubow
PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL
COMPLAINT COMMITTEE
Chair: Noreen McCarthy
Vice Chair: Fred Sosinsky
Members: Chandra Gomes, Russell T. Neufeld, Marvin Schechter
Advisory Member: Bennett Gershman
PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE
Chair: Grainne O’Neill
Members: Mehdi Essmidi, Jessica Horani, Timothy Murphy, Joseph Rochman, John Wallenstein
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Chair: Brian Melber
Members: Steven Epstein, Yung-Mi Lee, Jill Paperno, Kevin Stadelmaier
WOMEN IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE COMMITTEE
Chair: Lindsay Lewis
Vice Chair: Hilary Rogers
Member list forthcoming
NYSACDL Membership
PRESIDENT:
The Largest Criminal Defense Bar Association in New York State
PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE • OUR MEMBERSHIP IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH
Jessica A. Horani, Manhattan
PRESIDENT-ELECT:
Kevin M. Stadelmaier, Buffalo
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT:
Alan S. Lewis, Manhattan
VICE PRESIDENTS:
John Ingrassia, Newburgh
Randall Inniss, Suffern
Seymour W. James Jr., Manhattan
Jill Paperno, Rochester
Claudia Trupp, Cragsmoor
SECRETARY:
Grainne E. O'Neill, Brooklyn
TREASURER:
Samuel Braverman, Manhattan*
DIRECTORS
Michael T. Baker, Binghamton
Stephanie Batcheller, Albany (NYSDA Designee)
Jacqueline E. Cistaro, Manhattan
Xavier R. Donaldson, Manhattan
Drew Dubrin, Rochester
Allegra Glashausser, Brooklyn
Kendea Johnson, Manhattan
Jessica Kulpit, Buffalo
Leanne Lapp, Canandaigua
Lindsey Lewis, Manhattan (NACDL Designee)
Renate Lunn, Manhattan
Greg Lubow, Tannersville
Nathanial Z. Marmur, Manhattan
Noreen McCarthy, Keene Valley
Michael McDermott, Albany
Eli Northrup, Bronx
Stephen Preziosi, Manhattan
Hilary Rogers, Plattsburgh
Donald Thompson, Rochester
Andre A. Vitale, Jersey City
Sherry Levin Wallach, White Plains
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
Jennifer Ciulla Van Ort, Clifton Park
LIFE MEMBERS:
(As of 12/19/2024)
Daniel Arshack
Wayne C. Bodden
Peter E. Brill
David J. Cohen
Lori Cohen
Terrence M. Connors
Anthony Cueto
Gerard M. Damiani
Edgar De Leon
Joshua L. Dratel
Steven B. Epstein
Mark A. Foti
Russell M. Gioiella
Lawrence S. Goldman
James Grable
Renee Hill
Timothy W. Hoover
Jessica Horani
John Ingrassia
Kathryn M. Kase
Ray Kelly
Terence L. Kindlon
Seth H. Kretzer
Gerald Lefcourt
David L. Lewis
Thomas F. Liotti
Scott Lockwood
Greg D. Lubow
Christopher X. Maher
Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma
Brian Melber
Florian Miedel
Cory Morris
Aaron J. Mysliwiec
Brian J. Neary
Thomas J. O'Hern
Paul D. Petrus
Frank Policelli
Murray Richman
Stacey Richman
Joel B. Rudin
Lisa Schreibersdorf
John S. Wallenstein
Robert G. Wells
Richard D. Willstatter
Todd J.W. Wisner
SUSTAINING MEMBERS: (As of 12/19/2024)
Joseph R. DeMatteo
Karen L. Dippold
Michael G. Dowd
Mario F. Gallucci
Phillip Hamilton
James P. Harrington
Daniel J. Henry
Michael D. Horn
Isabelle A. Kirshner
Robert P. Leighton
Mark J. Mahoney
NYSACDL Member Benefits
MEMBER BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION IN OUR MEMBER PROFILE – Members can now include brief biographical information (positions held, bar admissions, schools attended, honors or publications) in our online searchable Membership Directory. This directory is available to the general public and is referenced by those seeking counsel and assistance throughout the state.
NYSACDL LISTSERV – NYSACDL offers both a Federal and State Practice Listserv which provide members with invaluable forums in which to pose questions, seek information, exchange ideas and share resources with members statewide.
CLE SEMINARS – NYSACDL is an Approved Provider accredited by the New York State CLE board. We sponsor numerous CLE seminars during the year throughout the state at reduced rates for members. Practical nuts and bolts topics alongside cutting edge issues make our CLE programs invaluable to new members as well as those with years of trial experience. Our speakers are among the most respected and experienced criminal defense attorneys and leading experts in the country.
NCDC SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM – NYSACDL members in good standing are eligible to apply for the Twelve Angry Men scholarship to the annual National Criminal Defense College in Macon, Georgia.
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY – NYSACDL’s Legislative Committee, working with a retained
lobbyist, develops and pursues positions on legislative issues relating to the criminal justice system thereby providing a respected voice of the defense bar in Albany. Members have an avenue to become involved and stay informed. Our members were involved in the recent reforms of the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
AMICUS BRIEFS – NYSACDL provides amicus assistance on issues of particular import.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP – NYSACDL committees are active in areas throughout the state and work on issues vital to strengthening the criminal defense community. Membership on a committee provides an excellent opportunity to pursue specific interests, serve the criminal defense bar and to network with lawyers throughout the state.
MENTORING AND STRIKE FORCE ASSISTANCE – NYSACDL members provide mentoring and assistance for other members. If a question or need arises, a member will be there to give assistance. NYSACDL members are ready to step in to help other members who are subpoenaed, threatened with contempt, or otherwise under attack for the vigorous representation of the accused.
2025 Membership Application
Please Select A Membership Level:
PRESIDENT'S CLUB MEMBERSHIP
To join NYSACDL, mail the form below or join online at www.nysacdl.org.
NYSACDL 636 Plank Road, Suite 215 Clifton Park, NY 12065 518/443-2000 jlvanort@nysacdl.org
Note - All Prices Include $15 Donation To NYSACDL Foundation - Check Here To Remove
Dues: $631; 12
Dues: $380; 12 Monthly
PUBLIC DEFENDER MEMBERSHIP
Annual Dues: $176; 12 Monthly Payments: $14.67 - Available to anyone whose practice includes more than 50% defense of indigent clients.
ATTORNEY MEMBERSHIP Annual Dues: $176; 12 Monthly Payments: $14.67 - Available to anyone practicing less than 5 years or annual criminal defense income is less than $50,000. RETIRED ATTORNEY MEMBERSHIP
RECENT LAW SCHOOL ALUMNI MEMBERSHIP
LAW STUDENT MEMBERSHIP
Billing Address (If Different From Below):
Annual Dues: $244; 12 Monthly Payments: $20.33 - Non-lawyers who assist in the defense of criminal cases.
Dues: $114; 12 Monthly Payments: $9.50
Annual Dues: $87; 12 Monthly Payments: $7.25 - Within 1 year from graduation.
Annual Dues : $0 - Free Law School: Date of Completion:
Premium Members receive special recognition and are included in the Defenders Circle for the duration of their membership or two years, whichever is longer. Monthly Credit Card
Date of Birth: Website: City, State Zip:
Honors, Awards & Publications:
I certify that I meet the criteria for the membership category to which I am applying. Attorneys: I certify that I am member of the bar in good standing, I am not subject to suspension or disbarment in any jurisdiction and I am not engaged in any manner of criminal prosecution.
“Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father’s passin’.”Townsfolk stand and pay their respects to Atticus Finch after the jury conviction of Tom Robinson in one of the most poignant scenes of Harper Lee’s great American classic To Kill a Mockingbird Original painting, © 2004 by the artist Trevor Goring • limited edition prints available, www.imagesofjustice.com
636 Plank Road, Ste. 215
Clifton Park, NY 12065
Phone: 518-443-2000 Fax: 888-239-4665 U.S.
atticus@nysacdl.org www.nysacdl.org
