As the highly publicized trial challenging the New York City Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program was winding down last month, the office of Mayor Michael Bloomberg released a "study" claiming that the Southern District judge presiding over the trialJudge Shira A. Scheindlingrants suppression motions in a uniquely high percentage of cases. That release produced a May 15 New York Daily News story headlined "Judge vs. The NYPD"1 and a May 27 New Yorker magazine article that focused on Judge Scheindlin and reported, "According to a study prepared by the Mayor’s office, Scheindlin suppresses evidence on the basis of illegal police searches far more than any of her colleaguestwice as often as the second-place judge."2
Setting aside the propriety of an apparent effort to influence Scheindlin or taint her in the eyes of the public or the Second Circuit, the publicity about Scheindlin’s suppression rulings raises important questions about the extent to which such rulings can and do reflect bias. Because they require balancing constitutional rights against the prosecution of people charged with crimes, suppression motions present particularly difficult challenges for district court judges.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
