Skip to main content

Assistant D.A.'s filling in gaps with town courts not a conflict, Friedman says

By Howard B. Owens

District Attorney Lawrence Friedman told the County Legislature's Public Safety Committee this afternoon that he isn't too concerned about his assistants serving local towns as stand-in prosecutors.

Legislature Ray Cianfrini, District 1, raised questions about the practice during Friedman's regular  report to the committee, but Friedman said the practice doesn't interfere with either of the two assistant DAs (of the four) who take on extra cases in the towns.

"It's the same question if an assistant D.A. wanted to go out and sell fire wood in his off hours, I wouldn't have a problem and I don't see a conflict," Friedman said.

Friedman stressed that the work the staff members are required to get done is getting done, and because of the nature of the job, they often work odd hours (such as helping law enforcement with cases late at night), that even if they respond to a town case in the middle of the day, the county's work is still getting done within the required weekly hours.

Because freshly minted attorneys can earn quite a bit of money as "assigned council" (defense attorneys), Friedman said he doesn't begrudge his attorneys making extra cash as town prosecutors.

After the meeting Cianfrini said he was satisfied with Friedman's answers, but he is still concerned about public employees moonlighting because of the pension issue -- he wants to make sure that the extra work doesn't obscure whether the public employee is putting in a full work day from a benefits standpoint.

Towns often require paid prosecutors because State Police officers are not allowed, unlike Sheriff's deputies, to prosecute their own cases. When people are cited for speeding, or other traffic infractions -- but not misdemeanors or felonies -- the deputy or officer who issued the ticket acts as prosecutor.

But when State Police issue a ticket and then don't show up in town court, because they are prohibited from acting as prosecutor, cases are often dismissed, costing the towns revenue, according to Bethany officials I spoke with last week.  Bethany is looking at hiring a part-time prosecutor, which many towns along the Thruway did some time ago, because of the revenue potentially lost when traffic tickets are not enforced.

Friedman said the practice of the assistant D.A.s to handle these infractions is raising no time or conflict-of-interest issues for his office.

In other Public Safety Committee News:

  • Deputy Chief Jerome Brewster said the Sheriff's Office requested a $50,000 grant for video equipment to record interviews the criminal suspects, but received only $15,000.  The department is reviewing its options now.
  • The Sheriff's office will use $2,000 in available grant money to purchase equipment to assist in domestic violence investigations. The equipment: Compact Digital Video cameras. (These little suckers are great I-witness journalism tools -- I wonder if the Sheriff will let me train his deputies to be I-witness journalists -- when they're not investigating actual cases, of course).
  • Genesee Justice will be able to lease electronic monitoring devices for five months to test whether the equipment can help adequately with home confinement cases. Cost: $5,800.
  • Approved extension of a contract American Rock Salt for purchase of sodium chloride. Highways Director Tim Hens said many local agencies have been signing new contracts recently at $50 and $60 per ton. ARS has agreed to much more modest price increase, from $38.98 per ton to $39.76.
daniel cherry

whats an eye witness journalist?And too bad the camera there doesn't do hd.Neither does my camera.Or the new canon.But the cheaper i think its kodak 120$ does i think.Those cameras won't endure i do not think.Ya know i could have sworn i saw a camera in you know wheres offices.Maybe i was mistaken though.

Jun 16, 2009, 2:28am Permalink
Timothy Paine

Are these video cameras intended to be used as hidden or used to document after the fact? I have several problems with the idea of hidden cameras. If you're a victim of abuse why would you put yourself in a position of getting abused again? Aren't you making yourself bait? Like nanny cams, if you suspect abuse get a new nanny. Why would you run the risk of your kids getting hurt? Why would you do it to yourself? Another thing, what about the person setting up the hidden video provoking the other party into a confrontation? I would never get violent myself, but I also know that no one can push my buttons as much as my wife. Meaning, I'm like every other couple. We all know what sets the other one off. Can someone set up a camera specifically to push it to a point? Slamming a door, shouting and or cursing? What makes a dangerous or threatening situation? How can it be perceived on tape? It still goes back to why would anyone use themselves as bait? Just as you would with your kids, if it has the possibility of resulting in injury why do it? Even if the cameras are there for documentation, the injury or dangerous situation still has to happen. If the threat of injury is there, get out!

Jun 16, 2009, 9:48am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I'm under the impression that the intent is for deputies to carry these cameras and record what they find at a crime scene. These would not be effective hidden cameras since there is no remote control ability and would be hard to effectively conceal. There are cameras better suited to hidden camera usage.

Jun 16, 2009, 10:21am Permalink
Andrew Erbell

"These little suckers are great I-witness journalism tools -- I wonder if the Sheriff will let me train his deputies to be I-witness journalists -- when they're not investigating actual cases, of course)."

You are being facetious, right?

Jun 16, 2009, 10:29am Permalink

Authentically Local