NYPD reaches new low after they try judicial intimidation during "Stop & Frisk" trial
The conclusion of Michael Farrell’s testimony took up the first part of the day. There was further discussion of appropriate benchmarks for statistical analysis, discussion of some of the RAND report findings and discussion of how audits of stops and frisks are conducted. Even as the topic at hand was the data and analysis in the RAND report, Farrell testified that he felt further data analysis was needed in order to take steps to address racial discrepancies in stops.
On another topic, Farrell admitted that he was aware that debate around racial profiling has been going on within communities for several years. Asked by the judge if that included criticism of the NYPD, he said that it did. Farrell’s admission that he was aware of community criticism of the NYPD for racial profiling, while not directly contradicting the testimony of other commanding officers who have all said that complaints from the community never mentioned racial profiling, paints a different picture, one where at least one high-ranking police official knew that this was a concern.
Farrell was followed by Chief of Patrol James Hall, whose direct testimony was far longer and more expansive than anticipated. Over four hours, Jonathan Moore and other plaintiff lawyers repeatedly objected as the defense pursued a line of questioning that had not been proffered to plaintiffs before hand, as required. The defense introduced new exhibits and tried to question Hall about them. Given the unexpected scope of the testimony, Moore requested a chance to review the transcript before beginning his cross examination. The judge agreed and Hall’s cross will be tomorrow.
In the meantime, the plaintiff’s remedies expert took the stand for the last hour of the day. Sam Walker has 39 years experience as an expert in policing and police accountability issues. He presented an overview of the points of his testimony: that there must be a comprehensive accountability system to prevent unconstitutional policing; that there is a need for a court-appointed monitor to oversee the remedies; and that must be community input into the remedies. He began to go into some specifics before the day was out, and the judge asked some questions about how the implementation of a monitor would work, which Walker broke down in detail.
The court was packed today with students from the Bronx School of Law and Finance. Meanwhile, outside the court, the city’s bad behavior in what CCR said “appears to be an unseemly attempt at judicial intimidation during trial” was taken to task after the city leaked an internal report critical of Judge Scheindlin. In a strongly worded statement, CCR condemned the attack on the judge as “outrageous.
CCR's statement:
"The NYPD’s attempt to attack Judge Shira Scheindlin for some fantasized anti-police bias is nothing short of outrageous. Having already attacked the Center for Constitutional Rights, communities mobilizing to end violent and discriminatory policing, and the press, this attack on a respected judge scrapes the bottom of the litigation barrel. It reflects desperation in light of the accumulation of evidence pointing to their liability in this case and appears to be an unseemly attempt at judicial intimidation during trial. Rather than undertaking studies about Judge Sheindlin’s rulings, the City might consider undertaking studies to remedy the persistent constitutional violations in its police department. As counsel to the City, Michael Cardozo should take responsibility for – and publicly repudiate – this inappropriate stunt." http://ccrjustice.org/floyd-trial-updates
Court transcript from 5/15/13
All about Floyd v. City of New York:case pagepress kit