Interesting week in criminal law for upstate New York

March 29, 2024 9:25 AM

March 18: NY's Appellate Court prohibits the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office from retrying a defendant in a murder case in which the judge declared a mistrial. This leaves the accused in an unusual legal position: not exonerated or found "not guilty", but immune from prosecution unless the state's highest court intervenes.

March 20: Albany man's murder conviction dismissed after two decades in prison

"Davis' convictions were the product of a case built on evidence gathered by now-discredited Albany police Detective Kenneth Wilcox. The late investigator, who died in 2006 in a car crash and was later implicated in a mortgage fraud scandal, has now been linked to at least three separate cases in which murder convictions were dismissed based on tainted confessions."

March 21: Judge rules that lawsuits against social media [Facebook, 4Chan, Reddit and YouTube] can move forward in Buffalo massacre case

As the judge noted in her decision, the lawsuits counter that the social media platforms "are sophisticated products designed to be addictive to young users and they specifically directed Gendron to further platforms or postings that indoctrinated him with 'white replacement theory.' "

See also coverage from The Root and press release from Everytown Law, the gun-control group that filed on behalf of the victim's parents.

March 27: DA files ‘very rare’ NY racketeering charge against men accused of Syracuse gang murder

[D.A.] Fitzpatrick said that the “audacity” of the attempt to interfere with the judicial process was part of why he chose to move forward with the rare charge and reindict the two men.

posted by The Pluto Gangsta (5 comments total)

The Buffalo ruling is part of a move by the courts to start drawing dividing lines between actions by users and actions by platform owners (see also: the courts ruling that Omegle's issues with exposing minors to predators were based on the site's (lack of) content controls), in a move to curtail Section 230 indemnification arguments. Which, to me at least, is something long overdue - if their algorithm is choosing to promote toxic and harmful ideologies and feed them to vulnerable individuals for the sake of "engagement", that is absolutely on the head of the platform owner and they should be held accountable. I still expect The Usual Suspects to scream bloody murder over it, because the real points are 1) liability is a dirty word and 2) the tech world absolutely thinks it should not be ruled.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:57 AM on March 29 [11 favorites]

Hold them accountable!
posted by Czjewel at 10:17 AM on March 29 [2 favorites]

In the Monroe County case, notably missing from the article is that one of the defendants is black. The reports of racial tension with the single black man on the jury casts significant doubt for me about whether the defendant was receiving a fair trial.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:23 AM on March 29 [5 favorites]

Hold them accountable!

I'm wanting to read this as being jocular.
If not, who are we holding accountable?
posted by BlueHorse at 2:46 PM on March 29

Reference is to "absolutely on the head of the platform owner and they should be held accountable."
posted by away for regrooving at 3:01 PM on March 29