Court Blocks Stop-and-Frisk Changes for New York Police

And slaps down the Judge in the process:

 

I think the court slapped down the judge and blocked stop-and-frisk changes in the process.

 

Here's the article that resulted from her mid-trial interview with the New Yorker:

You've got to love a judge honest enough to admit she doesn't love trials. She just likes her opinions, where she can do what she thinks is right, push the envelope, and be creative.

 

This Order of the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals is of limited impact, simply staying certain remedial actions ordered by the lower court until the appeals are heard sometime after March 14, 2014.

The Court stated that the cases are remanded to the District Court "for the sole purpose of implementation" of the Order (to stay all other proceedings pending action by the Court of Appeals on the merits of the appeals).

The Court stated that it was intimating "no view on the substance or merits of the pending appeals, which have yet to be fully briefed and argued."

 

You realize this was a bench trial, correct? And do you disagree with her assessment of trials as an inefficient mechanism for establishing the facts she needed to base her opinion?

 

Yes. She's not interested in the facts. She, wants a good story, and isn't going to let the facts get in the way.

 

No. She was not interested in facts she did not deem relevant as a matter of law.* For instance, the City repeatedly tried to enter testimony about the efficacy of the program--despite the fact she told them it would not matter in her decision.

* Do you disagree the law is important? Why can't I reframe your statement this way: "YankeeFan is not interested in the law. He wants to base his resolution only his view of the facts, and will not let the law get in the way."

And, for the record, the trial lasted 10 weeks.

 

The shot at Judge Scheindlin is utterly ridiculous, and to do it sua sponte...I don't have the words. She didn't actually comment on the case in the piece with Toobin. As a matter of fact, Toobin's take is here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/10/the-preposterous-removal-of-judge-scheindlin.html

That being said, this is likely of little impact (it's only a stay; the new mayor will likely change policies regardless of the pending appeal etc...).

 

Cry me a river.

If long, boring trials bore her, she can quit. I'd rather listen to sports writers complain about the food in the press box.

She improperly sought the case, because she wanted to rule against the NYPD. Of course she was frustrated with 10 weeks of testimony. She knew how she'd rule before the trial began.

And, she couldn't wait to writer her opinion.

 

Have you ever sat through a trial*? Do you have any conception of how they work? Do you have any proof that a trial is actually an effective way to reach the "truth"? And spare me any talk about the Constitution--this was a bench trial, so that is irrelevant.

* For that matter, do you have any idea how the legal system actually works? I'm guessing not, since you apparently think it's appropriate for litigants to clog up the courts by presenting irrelevant testimony.

 

Are you going to list your degrees like Devil?

Yes. I've been a juror a couple of times. It's painfully slow, and boring. You're constantly wishing they would just get to the point.

Have also been a witness in a criminal case.

My father, and one of my brothers, are trial lawyers. So, yeah, I think I have an idea of how the legal system works.

Do trials reach the "truth"? I suppose they do on whole, but certainly not in every case. But, a judge, more than anyone should respect the proceedings, and not look to impose her own biases on the case before her, which is exactly what she did.

As far as "irrelevant" testimony, lawyers in every trial, on each side, try to get in testimony that they view as favorable, and the judge may deem to be "irrelevant". That is not unique to this trial, and it doesn't mean the litigants were "clogging" up the courts. That's ridiculous.

 

First, despite your earlier comments, you agree with the judge that trial are inefficient?

Second, does the fact that lawyers often attempt to inappropriately influence jurors by entering irrelevant evidence mean that is is OK? And that it is not a problem judges should be worried about? The judge repeatedly told the city that she was not interested in that evidence--again, as a matter of law, she did not deem it relevant--yet they repeatedly wasted her time by trying to enter it into testimony.

Third, where is your proof the judge is biased?

Fourth, why should a judge--very familiar with the trial process--not speak out about problems with that process? Shouldn't judges seek to find more efficient ways to make their findings in nonjury trials?

Fifth, I have many relatives that are employed in many different jobs. It does not make me an expert in those fields, though, just like you sharing some genes with a lawyer or two doesn't make you an expert in this one.