Prosecutor Says NO to New York Sealing BUT Judge Says Yes!

The new New York sealing is great, and it offers second chances BUT it's not guaranteed. The prosecutor can contest (oppose) the sealing of any criminal convictions. A recent case shows just what mindset the district attorney can bring to the table.

The Case is People v. Jaime S. Case Number 4517/2003 just decided January 31, 2018. In the case the prosecutor really had two arguments against sealing the past felony convictions:

1. You already have a job, you don't need or require a better job.
2. Future employers should know about you (your past felony criminal convictions).

The judge disagreed entirely. Permitting this person to move forward in their professional life.

https://youtu.be/xhun3xWvx9o

The case was about an IT (information technology) officer who wanted to move forward in his professional life. He had two felonies convictions involving computers from over 15 years prior.  Job offers were rescinded over and over when it came time to do the background checks even though he was highly qualified and skilled with computers. He wanted these high paying and more challenging positions BUT the old felony convictions were holding him back. 

He applied under New York Criminal Procedure Law 160.59 to have his convictions sealed so he could move on with his life and the prosecutor said no. Even though he paid his dues, did probation for years, was released early from probation, paid thousands in fines, and lived a law abiding life for    over a decade the prosecutor felt he should always have the curse of old convictions.

The judge disagreed with the district attorney and allowed sealing. There was no dispute this was a "productive, stable, and successful member of society." But the prosecutor said that "societal utility" would be better served by keeping his convictions unsealed. 

As the judge makes clear, the new sealing law is to maximize the chances of this individual and remove any blocks to his future.

The broader question then becomes, as the People implicitly argue, whether there is reason to deny him relief because the impetus and underlying rationale for the statute was the desire to help those whose criminal convictions prevented them from fully integrating into society, and not someone in defendant’s position. There has been increased discussion in recent years regarding the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. One of the more serious of these isthe limited access to the labor market which a conviction brings (Mackenzie J. Yael, Expungement Law: An Extraordinary Remedy for an Extraordinary Harm, 25 Geo J on Poverty Law and Policy 169 [2017]).

The New York State Legislature enacted CPL 160.59 in conjunction with an amendment of the Penal Law which raised the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 18. Concern about the collateral consequences of a criminal record was a core concern of the proponents of the bill (id.). The legislature made sure that a court reviewing a sealing application would consider its concern by requiring it to weigh “the impact of sealing the defendant’s record upon his or her rehabilitation and upon his or her successful and productive reentry and reentry into society (CPL 160.59 [7][f]). It is possible to derive from factor (7)(f), as the People do, the conclusion that if a person is already well integrated into society, there is less need to seal his or her record. 

It cannot be denied that the defendant is not among those whom the bill was primarily intended to benefit. He has had no difficulty achieving meaningful employment despite his criminal record, and has reached a comfortable economic station in life. But although he seems integrated into society and economically secure at present, there is no guarantee that such will always be the case. He seemed secure after his conviction but his status was upended in 2010 when the company that he was working for was purchased by another. The new regime offered him a position but changed its mind after conducting a background check. He suffered from anxiety and depression, and was forced to live on his savings until he found a new job. Given his record, it was not a foregone conclusion that anyone would hire him. Circumstances change, and there is no way to be sure that anyone is permanently secure in life. Whether or not he ever tries to advance himself, his conviction may yet again undo him. It makes little sense to deny the defendant relief under the statute until such time as his life takes a turn for the worse.


Granting his application now may ensure that day never comes.