WORM TURNS
In Brooklyn Supreme Court, an operative of the borough's Democratic machine has cut a deal. Prosecutors in an abrupt move dropped all charges against Brooklyn party executive Director Jeffrey Feldman yesterday. Feldman, who was disgraced party chairman Clarence Norman's top aide, has agreed to testify against his ex-boss. The charges Feldman faced could have landed him in prison for up to 15 years, but all were summarily dismissed in a four-minute hearing before Supreme Court Judge Martin Marcus. Freedom of course, isn't free. Feldman in turn is providing key information in the four-year-old judgeship-for-sale investigation that could lead to an indictment against Supreme Court Judge Howard Ruditzky, according to the Daily News. Indicted Supreme Court Justice Michael Garson has claimed Ruditzky paid Norman $100,000 to buy a seat on the bench, the paper reports. Ruditzky declined to comment. Along with Norman, Feldman faced charges of grand larceny by extortion, attempted grand larceny by extortion, coercion, and conspiracy for allegedly ordering two judicial candidates to pay favored vendors $100,000 or lose their support.

WATCHDOG 'S BIGGER BITE
Complaints against New York judges are on the rise. In fact, they increased for the sixth straight year in 2005. Either the bench is committing more sins, or watchdogging is becoming more popular. (Or both.) The Commission on Judicial Conduct initiated a record-breaking 260 formal investigations, voted to remove four judges, publicly censured 15, and admonishd five, according to an annual report released yesterday. The New York Law Journal notes the Commission received 1,565 complaints, the most ever.

BREYER PATCH
Tony Mauro asks in the Legal Times how it is that Justice Stephen Breyer did not recuse in a case involving Duke Energy set for Nov. 1 when he reportedly sold off up to $50,000 common stock in Duke Energy Corp. The company, which supplies power to more than two million people in North and South Carolina, is the respondent in a major environmental case before the court. Breyer, as it turns out, has a perfectly good explanation. (Were we expecting anything less?) He told Mauro that the stock belonged to his wife Joanna, and was sold before the case went to the May 11 conference at which the Court agreed it would hear the case. That's the timeline offered by the Justice, but Duke filed a petition for certiorari in December 2005, suggesting a red flag could have well gone up earlier in chambers. The stock holdings are public knowledge, but the lawyers involved in the case had no idea. Mauro writes that, "Breyer’s nonconflict highlights the challenges faced by judges in policing potential conflicts of interest, especially so soon after the Judicial Conference last month imposed new requirements on lower federal judges to redouble their efforts to detect and prevent conflicts of interest through conflict-checking software and other means."