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

Are trials inefficient? Compared to what?

Yes. It's a lawyers job to try to get in evidence. They're advocates for their clients, not potted plants. That's part of the process.

Here's what the court said about her impartiality:

Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 2 (“A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”); see also Canon 3(C)(1) (“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . . .”), and that the appearance of partiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s “related case rule,”

So, she should have disqualified herself, instead, she improperly used the "related case rule" to get the case in front of her.

Should a judge bitch to a magazine writer about the "problems with that process" during the trial? No. That's not the proper time or forum.

And, while I'm not an "expert" on the legal system, or trials, I also didn't claim to be, and that wasn't your original question. You asked if I had, "any idea how the legal system actually works." I believe I do, and stated the reasons, one of which was growing up in a house with a lawyer, who discussed the law, and inspired two of my brothers to pursue it as a career -- one as a trial lawyer.

 

Nowhere in the order does it say the judge was biased. Good thing you're not a lawyer--because you clearly do not read closely.

Judges will comment on the proceedings of a case before them within the forum of a trial (for instance, go back and read what the judge had to say during the SEC's trial against the Goldman Sachs banker). Why does it matter whether it was said to a magazine writer instead?

There are all sort of things a lawyer could do to advocate for a client that are frowned upon by the courts--present irrelevant evidence, misstate the law, etc. Whether or not that is a lawyer's job, the courts should obviously try to stop them from doing that. So your comments about a lawyer's duties are, as they say, "irrelevant."

 

I didn't say the court did. I said she was, and the court said she should have disqualified herself because her, "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

The fact that she improperly steered the case to her courtroom is in itself evidence that she wanted to rule on the case.

 

Well, at least you have a stronger foundation as a legal analyst than as a media critic.

 

You probably share DNA with two people who think an education and certifications are important and relevant.

 

Who doesn't think eduction is important and relevant?

Certain areas of study have less monetary value in today's society. And, the value of various "certifications" vary. For instance, I question the value of any certification you might hold.

 

Anyone else litigate a case before Judge Scheindlin except for me?

She's a publicity hog and a case hog. The former places her in a small minority among federal judges but the second does not. Is she often anti-police and pro-criminal defendant in her rulings? Yes. In my field (representing employers in discrimination cases), it was pretty clear that I had a harder time winning my case than I would in front of another job, but it didn't mean that she wasn't very competent. She actually was a really good judge, well above average in a pretty good district.

Lots of judges use the related case rule, maybe not as much as her. Jack Weinstein, one of the most respected district court judges ever, certainly did. Based on my reading of the stop and frisk case, she wanted the case and held the city's feet to the fire. You can certainly argue that, once she had the case, the city knew that they were in trouble, but that is far from saying that the case was foregone conclusion.

Much of the testimony in a trial, especially a bench trial, is tedious and can be stipulated to. For example, in the U.K., there is no "direct testimony", only written statements and the witnesses are then cross-examined by the other side and the judge, saving much of the time. A judge in a bench trial is both a finder of fact and a ruler of law, so they have to draft an opinion and it is more interesting than listening to evidence. It doesn't mean that the evidence shouldn't matter, but just that it isn't the cool part of the job.

It is no coincidence that she gave the interview to Toobin when she did. She likes publicity -- she talked endlessly about the Zubulake case, which was probably her claim to fame prior to this case. She wanted a big piece in the New Yorker right before she was going to rule on the case.

 

Yea, but is your brother a lawyer?

 

I can't attest to his legal knowledge because I don't know how many of his relatives are trial lawyers, but here are some thoughts from a federal district court judge in Nebraska:

http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/11/03/a-cheap-shot/

 

It is really concerning to learn the Narrative has jumped from liberal media circles to the judicial system.

 

Cry me another fucking river.

If a judge doesn't want a Circuit Court to take a "cheap shot", then don't run so clearly afoul of the law.

When you conspire with the Center for Constitutional Rights, in open Court, on how they could bring a case, that she could get before her, you deserve to get slapped down, and removed from the case.

She knew what she was doing. She predicted she would "get in trouble", and she did: