A sign greets people arriving on a Department of Correction bus at Rikers Island. - The Cost of Discretion Report found that the pretrial decisions made by New York City's 14 most carceral judges resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 extra years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million in costs to taxpayers.
- Given links between pretrial detention and increased public safety risks, the report called for enhanced judiciary transparency and increased judge accountability in New York.
- Judges, including retired Appellate Division, First Department Presiding Justice Ronald Acosta, attacked the report, claiming that it intimidated judges, and questioned its methodology.
- Despite attacking the report extensively, the judges fail to contend with its central argument: certain judges undermine public safety by frequently ordering pretrial detention.
- The attacks on the report's methodology are ill-informed and distract from the Report's substantive findings.
- Moreover, scrutiny of public servants, including judges, is not intimidation; it is a critical part of a well-functioning democracy.
Studying Judicial Decision-Making Is Not 'Intimidation'
The authors of a controversial report naming a group of New York City judges who they claim are more likely than their peers to put criminal defendants in pretrial detention respond to criticism of their work published in the New York Law Journal.
July 24, 2023 at 01:31 PM
16 minute read
Court Administration
A sign greets people arriving on a Department of Correction bus at Rikers Island.
- The Cost of Discretion Report found that the pretrial decisions made by New York City's 14 most carceral judges resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 extra years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million in costs to taxpayers.
- Given links between pretrial detention and increased public safety risks, the report called for enhanced judiciary transparency and increased judge accountability in New York.
- Judges, including retired Appellate Division, First Department Presiding Justice Ronald Acosta, attacked the report, claiming that it intimidated judges, and questioned its methodology.
- Despite attacking the report extensively, the judges fail to contend with its central argument: certain judges undermine public safety by frequently ordering pretrial detention.
- The attacks on the report's methodology are ill-informed and distract from the Report's substantive findings.
- Moreover, scrutiny of public servants, including judges, is not intimidation; it is a critical part of a well-functioning democracy.
Our recent report, "Cost of Discretion," reveals that from 2020 to 2022, the pretrial decisions made by New York City's fourteen most carceral judges resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 extra years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million in costs to taxpayers. Given the growing body of research linking pretrial detention to negative impacts on public safety, the report recommends increased transparency for the New York judiciary and greater accountability for its judges.
The report struck a judicial nerve. Acosta, a former high-ranking appellate judge in New York's court system, attacked the study in two op-eds. He was backed by twelve judicial groups, who echoed his objections in a published letter. Collectively, they labeled the study an attempt to "intimidate" judges and "undermine judicial independence," as well as criticized its analysis as "flawed," with Acosta even dubbing it "junk science."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Court System's Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission Presents Annual Diversity Awards
Appealability of Prejudgment Orders: CPLR 5512, Court of Appeals, Legislative Intent
10 minute read
Federal Court That Faces Its Share of Real-Life Horrors Gets Into Halloween Spirit
1 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Weil Practice Leaders Expected to Leave for Paul Weiss, Latham
- 2Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 3Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 4Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 5Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
