777 users online (179 members and 598 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559

    Question This is a strange ruling. I've never heard of one like it before

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/ny..._20131101&_r=0

    ...The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed nearly six years ago. ...

    Has anyone else here heard of something like this?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,334

    Strange?

    Steely

    Is the 'strange part' to you that Appellate Ct
    1. removed trial ct judge from this case
    or
    2. postponed operations of the monitor to oversee new LE stop & frisk procedures.
    Or
    3. Something else.

    If 1,
    App Ct said judges are not supposed to solicit cases or invite persons (thru media interviews) to file lawsuits on a particular issue, and a judge doing that is violating the judiciary’s code of conduct, so the judge cannot hear the case.
    “In its ruling, the panel of three judges — …. — criticized Judge Scheindlin for granting media interviews and for making public statements while the case was pending before her, including articles in The New Yorker and by The Associated Press. In criticizing the judge for bringing the stop-and-frisk case under her purview, the three-judge panel also cited an article by The New York Times in a footnote.” SBM
    and
    “The Court of Appeals …. ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ‘ran afoul”’of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the ‘appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.‘ The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed nearly six years ago.” SBM

    If 2,
    The App Ct also said it has not yet decided to reverse or affirm Judge S’s ruling that ‘old’ (current) LE stop & frisk procedures are unconstitutional and new procedures are to be put in place. Under the App Ct ruling,the ‘old’ (current) procedures stay in place, i.e., status quo continues. The App Ct will hear arguments next year about the merits - about whether the ‘old’ (current) procedures are unconstitutional, then issue its decision. Until then the new trial judge is to place the case on hold.

    “The new judge, John Koeltl, was instructed to put off ‘all proceedings and otherwise await further action”’ from the panel. The appeals court has not yet taken up whether Judge Scheindlin’s decision reached the correct constitutional conclusion regarding the police tactics.”
    “’We intimate no view on the substance or merits of the pending appeals,’ the two-page order stated.”
    “The panel set a schedule for the appeals process that extends into 2014...”
     
    If 3,
    Can you be more specific about the strange part?

    JM2cts & I may be wrong.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,559
    Quote Originally Posted by al66pine View Post
    Steely

    Is the 'strange part' to you that Appellate Ct
    1. removed trial ct judge from this case
    or
    2. postponed operations of the monitor to oversee new LE stop & frisk procedures.
    Or
    3. Something else.

    If 1,
    App Ct said judges are not supposed to solicit cases or invite persons (thru media interviews) to file lawsuits on a particular issue, and a judge doing that is violating the judiciary’s code of conduct, so the judge cannot hear the case.
    “In its ruling, the panel of three judges — …. — criticized Judge Scheindlin for granting media interviews and for making public statements while the case was pending before her, including articles in The New Yorker and by The Associated Press. In criticizing the judge for bringing the stop-and-frisk case under her purview, the three-judge panel also cited an article by The New York Times in a footnote.” SBM
    and
    “The Court of Appeals …. ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ‘ran afoul”’of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the ‘appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.‘ The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed nearly six years ago.” SBM

    If 2,
    The App Ct also said it has not yet decided to reverse or affirm Judge S’s ruling that ‘old’ (current) LE stop & frisk procedures are unconstitutional and new procedures are to be put in place. Under the App Ct ruling,the ‘old’ (current) procedures stay in place, i.e., status quo continues. The App Ct will hear arguments next year about the merits - about whether the ‘old’ (current) procedures are unconstitutional, then issue its decision. Until then the new trial judge is to place the case on hold.

    “The new judge, John Koeltl, was instructed to put off ‘all proceedings and otherwise await further action”’ from the panel. The appeals court has not yet taken up whether Judge Scheindlin’s decision reached the correct constitutional conclusion regarding the police tactics.”
    “’We intimate no view on the substance or merits of the pending appeals,’ the two-page order stated.”
    “The panel set a schedule for the appeals process that extends into 2014...”
     
    If 3,
    Can you be more specific about the strange part?

    JM2cts & I may be wrong.
    I wasn't aware that judges could steer cases their way.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
    I wasn't aware that judges could steer cases their way.
    Steely,
    That's the problem.



Similar Threads

  1. 2010.07.15 Hearing Ruling
    By BondJamesBond in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 355
    Last Post: 07-16-2010, 10:51 PM
  2. Be Careful What You Say. Ruling against online heckler
    By Trino in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 09:40 AM
  3. Man Seeks $65,000 for Flawed Alimony Ruling
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2004, 05:33 PM