Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: 2nd Circuit Reinstates Stop & Frisk, Reprimands and Removes Judge Scheindlin. Updates. (306 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Stayed *pending* the appeal. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GrumpyOldGeek

    And IANAL but I understand that she might still be involved in the case if it gets bounced back to the state court on appeal. So removing her means that if the case is re-tried, it'll have a different judge.

    Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
    Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
    Code Monkey like you!

    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

    by Code Monkey on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 02:23:55 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There was and is not state court ever involved. (5+ / 0-)

      Scheindlin is a Federal District Court Judge.

      •  Ah. Lower court, then. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, poco, GrumpyOldGeek, Loge

        Am I basically right, though? If they remand the case to the lower court, she would be the one to retry it, except she's got yoinked off the case?

        Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
        Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
        Code Monkey like you!

        Formerly known as Jyrinx.

        by Code Monkey on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 02:30:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. I think so. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, GrumpyOldGeek
        •  no, new judge. (6+ / 0-)

          the order expressly requires a different judge.

          •  That one didn't decide like we wanted her to! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar, GrumpyOldGeek, onionjim

            Throw it out, get another one.
            Rinse and repeat until we get the decision we like.

            I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 02:39:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  American jurisprudence in three easy steps! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar

              I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 03:47:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, different grounds (4+ / 0-)

              Courts of Appeals deal with decisions they disagree with all the time -- every time they reverse a decision.

              In this case, the Court of Appeals removed her because they said she made public comments -- gave interviews, etc. -- on a case while it was pending before her.  If she did that, that's a big no-no for a judge.  

              •  Could you explain how they removed her (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar, SouthernLiberalinMD

                if the case was already on appeal. I thought she was out of the process at that point.

                •  They remanded the cases (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jpmassar, AoT, charliehall2, VClib

                  with an order that they be assigned to a different judge.  See here.

                  •  Remanded = do-over? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jpmassar, Tonedevil

                    Please, remember, you know what all the legal words mean, most folks here don't.

                    Thank you for the information.

                    •  Yes, that's what it seems to be. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AoT, VClib

                      Caveat:  I haven't read the opinion.  But they seem to have sent it back to another judge essentially to "do over."  

                    •  Remanded just means sent back. (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AoT, SheLawyer, jpmassar, VClib

                      Sometimes cases are remanded for a new trial, such as when a conviction is vacated. Then there may be a do-over. In this case, though, it was sent back to the district court just for purposes of implementing the order issuing the stay. They didn't send the whole case back -- the appeal will proceed in the normal course, to be argued sometime next spring. The appellate court hasn't offered an opinion on the merits of the appeal, which hasn't even been briefed. Some people read this order as hinting at how they'll rule. I don't, because of the particular judges involved, but it could turn out to be true.

                      Now that I've read the order, I believe it had less to do with talking about the case in an interview than with something else the judge did, which is kind of in-the-weeds but has to do with case assignment protocols. Specifically, she more or less invited plaintiffs to file another suit -- not in itself improper, but not common -- but also assured them that she would grant a request to treat it as a related case. (That means she would get the case assigned to herself, instead of to a randomly selected judge.) That's not quite saying "go find evidence of X type and I'll rule in your favor" but it comes a lot closer to saying this than anything I've heard a judge do. I'm actually pretty shocked if that happened, but other litigators here may have different views.

                      •  I agree with you. It was pretty over the top (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Villanova Rhodes, jpmassar, VClib

                        when you read the whole thing.  Essentially, she told litigators that if they wanted to bring a case challenging this, she'd get it sent to her to decide, and they had a good idea of how she'd rule.  

                        For those who don't know, cases are supposed to be randomly assigned.  It's a huge violation of the rights of litigants to have cases sent to a particular judge on purpose because that judge is considered to be more favorable to one side or the other.  

                        It could be that the Second Circuit ultimately will come to the same conclusion, but they want to make sure the decision is without the taint of impropriety.  

            •  The appeal isn't about civil rights (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              misslegalbeagle, charliehall2

              The city disagreed with the remedies. The city did not seek to resume their evil stop and frisk practices.

              The judge had ordered the police to wear cameras, It seems to me that this is a possible remedy that should be evaluated and recommended by someone other than a federal judge. It's more appropriate for a judge to order recommendations and judicial review rather than ordering a remedy that she imagines will work.

              I'd call that making shit up from the bench.

              "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

              by GrumpyOldGeek on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 04:37:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yup, making shit up. (4+ / 0-)
                Police Foundation Executive Fellow, Chief Tony Farrar, recently completed an extensive yearlong study to evaluate the effect of body-worn video cameras on police use-of-force. This randomized controlled trail represents the first experimental evaluation of body-worn video cameras used in police patrol practices. Cameras were deployed to all patrol officers in the Rialto (CA) Police Department. Every police patrol shift during the 12-month period was assigned to experimental or control conditions.

                Wearing cameras was associated with dramatic reductions in use-of-force and complaints against officers.

                Plus she only ordered a trial period wherein a very small number of officers would be wearing them.

                Plus lots of other police forces already have these cameras.

                Yup.  Completely making shit up from the bench.

                •  Judges aren't kings. They can't order (4+ / 0-)

                  any type of remedy they want.  

                  •  But it is my understanding they have great power (3+ / 0-)

                    when it comes to remedying constitutional violations.

                    Like ordering busing.

                    Are you seriously trying to make the claim that ordering a test trial of police wearing cameras when studies indicate good results and other forces uses them routinely is beyond a judge's power once NYPD has been found in violation of the US constitution?

                •  Don't get me wrong. Cameras are effective. (0+ / 0-)

                  As you note, body-worn cameras can be effective tools when applied appropriately. Dash-cams are everywhere.

                  My issue with the list of remedies is that, taken together, they don't do much to address the identified problem, the violation of civil rights. I can't imagoine how police wearing cameras stops them from racial profiling and civil rights violations.

                  But the goal isn't to reduce false  complaints about police behavior. It's not about protecting the police.

                  In the context of preventing civil rights violations, this short list of remedies doesn't make sense to me.

                  The decision that this is a civil rights violation is jeopardized by the list of remedies that seem to be inappropriate actions to resolve the identified problem.

                  And I'll take back the idea that she just made up some remedies. Maybe she was inspired by fortune cookie sayings.

                  This decision needs to be rewritten without the provisions that only seem to invite a series of appeals.

                  "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

                  by GrumpyOldGeek on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 10:23:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You don't see how the very act of being (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jpmassar

                    watched and monitored can change the actions of those who are being watched?  Are you serious?

                    You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                    by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Oct 31, 2013 at 10:41:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's those who are watchING (0+ / 0-)

                      The police are violating civil rights.
                      Monitoring those who they watch does nothing.

                      "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

                      by GrumpyOldGeek on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:14:52 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (32)
  • Media (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site