Judicial Reports: Too Much of a Good Judge?
By Jason Boog
Posted 01-26-2007
By most accounts, Martin Marcus is one of the finest judges on the state bench.
For years, he has occupied a spot on the Bronx County Supreme Court’s “special wheel,” from which the administrative judge selects one of five or six elite jurists to preside over the borough’s most controversial criminal cases.
Most recently, Marcus’s superiors took him out of the Bronx and dropped him into Brooklyn to oversee one of the smelliest scandals in the New York judicial history — the trial of disgraced party boss and Assemblyman Clarence Norman, Jr.
And yet, some worry: Is this too much of a good judge?
“I don’t fault Marcus for being there, the powers that be have selected him to be the bearer of bad tidings,” said a defense attorney who requested anonymity. “[But] it’s no good if you have the same prosecutor and same judge every time. Years ago they did away with that practice, because the court eventually becomes an adjunct of the prosecutor’s office.”
While such multiple assignments are relatively rare, the court administration defended the practice on general terms.
“The defense attorneys could always make a motion for another judge if they felt he was biased,” explained Ilan D. Gilbert, principle court attorney to John P. Collins, the administrative judge overseeing Marcus on the Bronx Supreme Court. “From a practical, administrative standpoint, it makes sense because the judge is familiar with certain aspects of a case . . . it’s simply procedural. Sometimes, for judicial economy, it makes more sense.”
Judge Marcus declined to comment for this article.
THE BROOKLYN MORASS
Twenty years ago, Judge Marcus made his career investigating mobsters who used to rule the state. Today, he is weighing the fate of a disgraced leader of the party that still rules Brooklyn.
What’s more, in this final trial, Marcus will be evaluating evidence that could damn the very judicial establishment that employs him.
Marcus has presided over these four trials since opening arguments began in 2005. After a year of courtroom action, two different juries found Norman guilty of six felony counts — including stealing a campaign contribution check and breaking campaign finance laws. In March 2006, another jury acquitted him of stealing more than $5,000 in travel reimbursement funds.
Marcus was hardly lenient, sentencing Norman to two-to-six years in prison for his crimes. The defense had asked for community service instead of jail time, while the prosecution asked for a maximum of 15 years in prison for his conviction. The sentence has been stayed until after this final trial.
While Norman’s previous trials all focused on the broader political machinery, this case focuses specifically on judges. The prosecution hopes to prove that Norman coerced Civil Court candidates to use particular firms for election work, a charge that casts a longer shadow over the Brooklyn judiciary.
The possible witness list for this trial contains big name members of the Brooklyn judicial establishment: Surrogate Margarita López Torres (whose federal case overturned New York’s boss-dominated judicial selection process); Civil Court Judges Delores J. Thomas, Robin S. Garson; retired Civil Court judge Margaret Cammer; Small Claims judge Johnny Lee Baynes; the current Democratic boss, Vito J. Lopez; and most dramatically, Norman’s former right-hand man in the Brooklyn Democratic Party, Jeffrey C. Feldman.
WATCHING THE WHEEL
Given the controversial subject matter at hand, the administration’s resort to the assignment wheel was hardly surprising.
“Upon request of defense attorneys or district attorneys, the administrative judge will put the case on a special wheel of judges,” explained Gilbert, principle court attorney to the Bronx administrative judge. “[They are] chosen for many reasons, including for their ability to handle sensitive cases or their availability. . . . [Marcus] very often is selected to be a member of this special wheel.”
The judge’s caseload reflects his rarified role. According to Judicial Reports research, Marcus had the fewest dispositions out of the 23 judges in the Bronx trial part. At the same time, he spent 222 days working, putting his attendance in the top quartile of all New York City Supreme Court judges, and 68 percent of his caseload ends with a verdict.
In other words, while Marcus disposes of fewer cases than his colleagues, the cases he does handle are generally much more time consuming and trial-oriented.
Does his background combine with the concentration of assignment to tilt his jurisprudence?
“He could be considered prosecution-oriented by some, but he’s fair,” said Joseph P. Carrozza, a Bronx defense attorney who has tried two homicide cases in front of Marcus over the last 20 years. The judge left a powerful impression on the attorney: “He’s a heavy hitter, and after conviction he’s a strong sentencer. . . . He’s a very serious man,” concluded Carrozza.
PORTRAIT OF THE JUDGE AS A YOUNG MOB BUSTER
Marcus’s prosecutorial bent is only natural, considering his early experience. After graduating from Yale Law School in 1974, he spent a few years in the New York County District Attorney’s Office, working as an assistant DA in the Rackets Bureau.
His efforts earned him a spot on the New York State Organized Crime Task Force, serving as first assistant in the mob crackdown from 1981 until 1990. He oversaw a team of legal researchers and attorneys building the state’s mountain of mob prosecutions.
“He was like the chief of staff. He was a brilliant guy,” recalled James B. Jacobs, one of Marcus’s colleagues on the task force. “I think he’s one of the smartest lawyers I’ve ever met.” Jacobs now teaches at New York University School of Law, and the judge regularly attends events at the school — serving as a high-profile mentor for the law students.
Judge Marcus has maintained a scholarly bent, publishing pieces in criminal law textbooks and law reviews. He currently chairs the American Bar Association’s Task Force on Biological Evidence, and has been quoted in the press about recent developments in the science of courtroom evidence.
He was never elected to his judicial post, however, avoiding both voter scrutiny and entanglement with the borough’s party boss corruption.
HOT BENCH, COOL JUDGE
Governor Mario Cuomo appointed Marcus to the Court of Claims in 1990. The judge was part of a special slate of eight judges nominated that year to handle drug caseloads created by the state’s stiff Rockefeller drug laws.
As that narcotics burden eased, these judges began to hear other criminal cases. Midway through his first term, Marcus found himself off the narcotics beat, hearing some of the Bronx's toughest murder cases.
He developed a reputation for a brisk, business-like style. “Most judges I can dominate, but not Judge Marcus — he always has his permanent guard up,” said one defense attorney who requested anonymity. “No joking around . . . he won’t permit too much histrionics.”
In 1995, Marcus handled the trial of Rodolfo Rodriguez, a 21-year-old thief who shot a Bronx police officer during a botched robbery. The murder garnered plenty of publicity as Rodriguez and his accomplice accused each other of firing the five shots that killed the officer.
The courtroom was packed with angry, vengeful spectators, but Marcus reportedly maintained relatively serenity throughout the proceedings.
“There was a courtroom full of cops, but I think he handled it well. He didn’t allow an intimidating atmosphere,” said Robert Koppelman, Rodriguez’s attorney. “There’s a certain amount of internal pressure in that kind of case, but I don’t think he allowed it to affect him.”
The jury convicted Rodriguez of second-degree murder, and Marcus hit him with the maximum sentence — 25 years to life. Despite losing the case, Koppelman said he’d be happy to try another case in front of the judge (and, of course, his public comments might well be tempered by precisely that possibility).
Two years later, Marcus received an even more controversial case involving the death of a police officer. In 1996, a young cop died while wrestling with an intoxicated suspect in the Bronx. Anthony Rivers had shattered a mirror during an argument with his girlfriend, and the police officer died after he was gashed by a shard of glass during the ensuing scuffle with the suspect.
The jury ended up acquitting the 40-year-old Bronx resident of negligent homicide but found him guilty of assault. The verdict generated waves of criticism around the city, including complaints from then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani that the prosecutors should have worked harder to imprison the man on second-degree murder charges.
“He had to try that case in a very small courtroom, every day it was full of cops — as you would expect. Yet [Marcus] maintained order every day,” remembered Carrozza, the attorney who defended Rivers.
While he played the peacemaker during the tumultuous trial, Marcus ended the case with characteristic firmness. He sentenced Rivers to the maximum sentence possible for his assault, four years in prison.
TAMMANY REVISITED
When the final Norman trial opened last Tuesday, some 100 potential jurors crammed into a tiny Brooklyn courtroom. Standing to recite their oaths, they created a sea of upraised arms that resembled an evangelical church meeting.
Marcus peered at his congregation over the rims of his gold-frame glasses, contemplating the highly publicized trial that has dominated his career for the last two years.
“I expect this trial will take a few weeks,” said the judge, with a salt-and-pepper beard and a grandfatherly calm. “But I think you’ll find this case particularly interesting.”
For the rest of the morning, he took the rare step of interviewing potentially conflicted jurors individually in his chambers, far from the eyes of prying reporters. Although unusual, the move typified the kind of discretion that at least one earlier defender says he has witnessed.
Such discretion was also familiar to defense attorney Anthony J. Ventura, a partner at the Bronx firm of Bruno & Ventura. He has tried three cases in front of Marcus, including a gruesome 2002 mass murder case in a “highly charged” courtroom.
Marcus handled the separate trials of a pair of men convicted of murdering five family members in a massacre. During that heady trial, Ventura unsuccessfully defended one of the killers — who was sentenced to life in prison.
“I don’t think this is the kind of judge who makes a ruling based on his personal feelings,” said Ventura. “He’s a little too intellectual for that. I don’t think he has an agenda. As far as handling the Norman case, you could do a lot worse.”
In this unusual case that promises to put judges on the witness stand and threatens to put at least one judge-maker in prison, it is remarkable that a single judge has handled all that went before. Whether that proves administratively defensible and politically wise will rest with Marcus himself.
Posted by Jason on January 25, 2007 06:09 PM to Judicial Reports