By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 8/16/2026
Category: Criminal Courts / Discovery Reform / NYPD Accountability / Due Process
BROOKLYN, NY – A Brooklyn judge has dismissed three charges without prejudice after finding that prosecutors packed multiple alleged incidents into single counts, a charging method that left the accused without clear notice of which conduct he had to defend against.
The ruling in People v Forrester does not decide whether the allegations are true. It addresses how the case was charged and how police-held evidence must be disclosed. The complainant and a minor involved in the case are not identified here.
Judge Nancy Fayed Carrington dismissed third-degree assault, attempted third-degree assault and second-degree harassment counts. Prosecutors had alleged as many as five distinct acts over roughly 14 hours, but bundled those acts into single counts instead of identifying which alleged act supported which charge.
That matters because a criminal accusation must do more than tell a defendant the general subject of a case. It must provide enough detail to permit a defense, protect against a second prosecution for the same conduct and allow jurors to agree on the same alleged act before returning a verdict.
When several separate acts are folded into one count, those safeguards can break down. One juror could rely on one alleged incident while another relies on a different one. The defendant may also be left uncertain about what exact accusation must be answered.
The court found that the bundled pleading created problems involving fair notice, double jeopardy and jury unanimity. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning prosecutors may file a superseding information that separates the alleged conduct and states the charges with legally sufficient precision.
One count of endangering the welfare of a child remains. The decision therefore does not end the prosecution, and it does not prevent the People from attempting to correct the dismissed counts. It forces the case back onto a more exact procedural footing.
The ruling also puts a spotlight on redactions made to reports generated through the New York Police Department’s Domain Awareness System. The court ordered prosecutors to provide both redacted and unredacted versions of the complainant’s reports, along with the stated basis for every redaction, within 10 days for an in-camera review.
An in-camera review allows the judge to examine material privately before deciding what must be disclosed to the defense. It is a safeguard designed to balance legitimate privacy or safety concerns against the accused’s right to obtain discoverable information.
The court treated the Domain Awareness System reports as automatically discoverable. It also stressed that most redactions require a protective order, rather than a unilateral decision to remove information before turning records over.
That distinction is central to New York’s discovery reforms. Prosecutors are responsible for identifying and producing police material connected to a case. If the government believes particular information should be withheld or limited, the ordinary route is to seek judicial protection and explain the need, not simply send a blacked-out record and leave the defense guessing.
The Domain Awareness System can draw together information from multiple NYPD sources. That makes its reports potentially valuable to both sides, but it also makes transparent redaction decisions essential. A hidden edit could conceal irrelevant personal data, or it could remove information that affects witness credibility, investigative steps or the theory of the case. The judge, not either party alone, must determine where the lawful line falls.
Carrington also ordered Dunaway, Huntley and Payton hearings. Those hearings can test whether police had a lawful basis for an arrest, whether statements were obtained legally and whether evidence flowed from an unlawful entry or seizure. Ordering the hearings does not establish police misconduct. It ensures that the challenged police conduct will be examined before disputed evidence is used at trial.
The decision is a reminder that procedural rules are not technical decorations. Clear counts tell an accused person what the government claims happened. Discovery rules prevent one side from controlling the evidence without review. Suppression hearings require the state to justify how evidence was obtained.
The unanswered questions now move to the next stage. Prosecutors must decide whether to file a superseding information. They must also produce the two versions of the police reports and justify each redaction to the court. The surviving child-endangerment count continues unless separately resolved.
For everyday New Yorkers, the broader issue is simple: the power to accuse must be matched by a duty to be precise. When prosecutors combine separate alleged acts or police records arrive already obscured, courts must insist on clarity before a case moves forward.
Leave a Reply