Jurors were given a new insight into Janet Abaora's brutal murder Thursday.
Mark: Here's more of the back story on the judge who called Stop and Frisk unconstitutional. (pasted from wiki) In August 2013, Judge Scheindlin ruled that the New York City stop-and-frisk program was unconstitutional, ordered immediate changes to the program, and called for a monitor to supervise related reforms. The case was Floyd v. City of New York. In October 2013, the Second Circuit stayed Scheindlin's decision and removed her from the case for violating the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. On November 13, 2013, in response to a Motion filed by Judge Scheindlin seeking reconsideration of her removal from the case on remand, the motion panel of the Second Circuit that issued the Order of removal declined to permit Scheindlin to dispute her removal, but issued an opinion purporting to disavow its previous conclusion that she had "run afoul" of the Code of Conduct. Rather, the panel stated, "[w]e conclude only that, based on her conduct at the December 21, 2007 hearing and in giving the interviews to the news media in May 2013, Judge Scheindlin's appearance of impartiality may reasonably be questioned... and that 'reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice In other words, after she got removed from the case (but not criticized or censured in any way), she appealed it and the motion panel did not have the nerve to try and enforce their action. They backed down and did not even let her have a semi-public forum to explain herself in. Instead, they just backed down and said her "appearance of impartiality may reasonably be questioned... and that 'reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice". So THEY felt it was better to make her look bad than to let her explain that nothing wrong happened. On the other hand, it makes me feel strangely better to know that the legal system also railroads judges, not just average citizens.