Recap and links to key documents in the Judge Scheindlin matter

I wanted to recap the key events and documents in the controversy over the Ligon case and the propriety of Judge Scheindlin’s actions and then offer some extended thoughts below the fold. [UPDATE: In particular, I've changed my mind about the Neumeister article. It's not clear to me that the Judge's most problematic comments as recounted in that article were made in the course of media interviews and reasonable people may disagree on whether her comment that the Mayor's office was hitting "below the belt" was in the context of the case on appeal. But given the Judge's decision to treat several cases as related, if the Judge's "below the belt" quote is reasonably understood to apply to the class of cases where the police are defendant, then it could still be grounds to doubt impartiality.]

Katherine Macfalane article (note: It appears that Macfarlane formerly worked for the NYC Law Department. The article gives the best background I've seen on the law of related cases.)

Goldstein article

Toobin article

Hamblatt article

Neumeister article

Second Circuit opinion  (which cites the Toobin, Hamblatt and Neumeister articles)

Statement by Judge Scheindlin in response to the Second Circuit's opinion

Motion by Judge Scheindlin seeking opportunity to be heard

Motion by the City for vacatur of the rulings below, seeking to buttress the Second Circuit's grounds for removal and adding more.

Letter from Judge Scheindlin to Second Circuit suggesting that they withdraw their opinion

Key background reading can be found in an article by Katherine Macfarlane. The article comes with a strong point of view and Macfarlane was a lawyer for the NYC Law Department, but the article has lots of important background information, including the rules by which the various stop-and-frisk cases were declared “related” to the first case that was randomly assigned to Judge Scheindlin. (I was surprised and disappointed by the flexibility given USDC judges in that district to control which judges get which cases. It’s not good for public confidence in the judicial process.)

Important news articles came from the NYT’s Joseph Goldstein (about the related case issue) and then three judicial profiles by Jeffrey Toobin, Larry Neumeister, and Mark Hamblett. All three articles state that Judge Scheindlin declared that she would not discuss the pending case. 

When one reads the articles carefully in light of Judge Scheindlin’s statement, the articles seem less problematic because the Judge apparently avoided direct comments about the pending case and because the most problematic comment—that the Mayor’s office was hitting “below the belt”—may not have come during the interviews and probably did not relate directly to the pending case. So, I have tempered my views somewhat but still believe that the Second Circuit was justified. It would have helped if the court had used more judicious language in its ruling.