Judicial Reports: LexPress: Coloring Juries, Capping Caseloads

By Jesse Sunenblick
jsunenblick@judicialstudies.com
Posted: 04-02-08 

The court system caps the number of cases law guardians can handle at 150. In other news, "maverick" Eastern District Judge Jack Weinstein declares a mistrial in a child porn case he had overseen himself. 

INDIVIDUALIZED ATTENTION 
In 2007, the State Legislature directed the Office of Court Administration to cap law guardians’ caseloads, in part because family court abuse filings had soared since the 2005 murder of Nixzmary Brown. As reported by The New York Law Journal, yesterday Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau revealed the fruit of a yearlong study, decreeing that going forward guardians will represent no more than 150 children at a time (some national groups had recommended the cap be as low as 100). “I think the cap is going to have an extremely positive effect on our representation of children in Family Court,” said Tamara Steckler, attorney-in-charge of the Juvenile Rights Practice of the Legal Aid Society. “It is going to have a tremendous impact on the services that we can provide to children.” Added Theo Liebmann, professor of clinical law at Hofstra University School of Law and attorney-in-charge of the Hofstra Child Advocacy Clinic: “It is going to mean that attorneys are going to have more time to give individualized attention to each client they represent. It is going to enable them to do a lot of the work besides court appearances and client meetings. It is fantastic for the attorneys and the clients.”

A "MAVERICK" AND A MINIMUM SENTENCE 
In a move The New York Post says “turns hundreds of years of legal precedent on its head,” yesterday Eastern District Judge Jack Weinstein used a legal loophole and declared a mistrial in the child porn conviction of Pietro Polizzi, 54, a Brooklyn pizza-shop owner. Although it’s normal for judges to avoid telling juries about potential mandatory sentences — so as to avoid coloring their decision making — Weinstein wrote that he “committed a constitutional error” by not telling the jury that Polizzi faced a five-year minimum sentence if convicted. The ruling suggests juries in certain situations should be told of “harsh mandatory minimum” sentences. “The judge has gone out on a limb here," the Post quoted an anonymous law-enforcement source as saying. “There’s clear case law that says the jury should not be informed about mandatory minimums.” After Polizzi was convicted, Weinstein polled the jurors and asked if they would have reached the same verdict had they known the sentence. Most said no, stating they thought Polizzi needed treatment, not prison time.

LOOMING PAYSUIT
In a short, dramatic item, attorney Bernard Nussbaum told the Post that he plans to file suit as soon as the State budget is passed without pay-raises for judges. The former counsel to President Bill Clinton noted that his suit would call Assembly and Senate leaders to the stand, along with the new governor.

CREDIBLE WITNESS?
Vetting the testimony of imprisoned drug dealer David Pietro, The New York Times reports that Acting Bronx Supreme Court Justice Denis J. Boyle yesterday tossed the 2000 murder conviction of a man suspected of killing Pietero’s lieutenant. Boyle said Pietro’s testimony was credible, since it was consistent with “the poisoned but longstanding relationship” he had with the man he said pulled the trigger. Pietro, meanwhile, appears to be a thug of the kindhearted variety: he told his story without being guaranteed protection or having his sentenced reduced.

EXPANDING TITLE VII 
And in a ruling of first impression, the Second Circuit held yesterday that a white assistant basketball coach has grounds to pursue a discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At issue is his allegation that he was fired due because his wife was African American. The Law Journal has the story. Southern District Judge Colleen McMahon had previously dismissed the lawsuit filed by Craig Holcomb, a former Iona College assistant basketball coach fired amid a period of unsuccessful seasons. McMahon had said that even if the school’s vice president and athletic director had made racist comments about Holcomb’s wife (not to mention members of the basketball team), Holcomb still had “not established any facts that link these alleged racist tendencies . . . to the administration’s evaluation of the basketball program.” (Holcomb had also alleged administrators perceived his wife’s race as unfavorable with school donors.) But the circuit offered a broader interpretation of Title VII. “The reason is simple: where an employee is subjected to adverse action because an employer disapproves of interracial association, the employee suffers discrimination because of the employee’s own race,” Judge Guido Calabresi wrote for the court.

WILL SCOTUS HEAD TO BROOKLYN? 
The Atlantic Yards litigation may still get its day in the U.S. Supreme Court, the New York Sun reports. About 12 Brooklyn residents are petitioning the highest court to fight the developer's eminant domain claim on the prime real estate that they hope to convert into a sports stadium and new residential and office spaces. The suit could challenge the court's 2005 ruling in Kelo v. the City of New London, a decision that permitted city officials to give private property to developers as long as the move would encourage economic growth in the community. Lead attorney Matthew Brinkerhoff said the case could challenge that divided opinion. “If they had the stomach for it, they could accept this case to overrule Kelo,” he explained. 

Posted by Jesse on April 2, 2008 09:47 AM to Judicial Reports