ALAA Roots — An Unofficial Site

December 12, 1988

Judicial Commission on Minorities Testimony

Raw OCR text:



13 Astor Place. 9th Floor. New Yor11. NY 10003

(212)674-4188 i2:2l67J-5120

Brooklyn Criminal Defense Division




Brooklyn Affirmative Action Committee Members

Michael Letwin

Re: Judicial Committee on Minorities

Date: 7/12/88

Attached are copies of testimony by members of the AAC at the

recent Commission Hearings. Also enclosed is a useful statement

by Russell Neufeld regarding bail, and several articles which

discussed this and other testimony taken at the hearings.

I doubt that much will come of the testimony at the hearings, but

the Commission chairperson did say that his staff would be

contacting our Committee to set up a meeting with us regarding

our experiences.

~ CJ\-1t.1. ,~;1 :r

1,~ Wjf


in the


Testimony before the

New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities

Presented by Kimbe~y Detherage, Esq.

Treasurer, Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

June 29, 1988

The Association of

Legal Aid Attorneys

District 65 {UAW/AFL-CIO)

13 Astor Place

New York, NY

(212) 674-4188

Views presented in this

testimony are those of

the author only •

. ,

The Criminal Justice System is a misnomer. It is

anything but just. It is a system that is racist, indifferent

and inhuman in its treatment of minority criminal defendants

and minority attorneys. The racism is overt as well as subtle,

but without a doubt it is pervasive throughout the entire

process from arrest to trial. It occurs through the police,

court personnel, prosecutors, judges, the Probation Department

as well as many attorneys.

The criminal justice system treats the clients and the

attorneys without respect. In fact, it treats Black and Hispanic

clients like animals at times. The treatment is disparate

between white and Third World defendants. It forgets that

persons charged with crimes are still human beings. In fact,

Black and Hispanic people accused of a crime, and their families,

very often come to court and are scared and don’t know what

is happening to them. The attitude among the court personnel

is to tell these defendants and their families to “sit down,

shut up and wait.” These court personnel generally don’t

answer questions or show any compassion for clients and their

families. In contrast, white court officers will often approach

white defendants or family members to ask them why they are

in court and what they need. Minority people, however, may

sit in court all day, only to be told at the close of court

that their case was already called and that they have to return

another day. These families leave feeling uncomfortable,

angry and frustrated.

The judges often show a lack of sensitivity to the

– 2 –

problems of minority clients and their families. Everyone

is presumed guilty. Judges are concerned more than anything

with guilty pleas and “dispositions.”

In part, judges act as they do because they usually

come from a sheltered social background where they have

never interacted with Black and Hispanic people. Then they

are thrown into a situation where they decide the fate of

thousands of minority people.

The police very often have discretion about who to

arrest. Generally, officers come across many neighborhood

fights as well as marital disputes. Often, white teenagers

are taken home in these situations to their parents for

discip.line and police will attempt to mediate white marital

disputes. With Black and Hispanic people in the same situation,

police will often make arrests instead, one result of which

is that minority defendants get arrest records and their fingerprints

and photos end up in criminal justice system files.

Once police decide to make an arrest, they have wide

discretion as to whether to issue a Desk Appearance Ticket

(DAT) or to put a person through the system. If a person

is arrested it make take two to four days to see the judge.

A DAT, on the other hand allows person to voluntarily appear

before the judge on a later date.

Often, Black and Hispanic defendants are arrested on

charges of jumping subway turnstiles, driving with suspended

– 3 –

liscense, assault, unauthorized use of a vehicle. Where

these are first arrests, police officers who may issue a

DAT to a white defendant will often keep minority defendants

in jail, where cells are unsanitary and overcrowded.

In addition, the volume of arrests is determined by

overtime considerations, holidays and police promotional

exams. For example, more arrests are made during certain

times of the year because this results in more overtime pay

which will be found in officer’s holiday paychecks. Today,

not many people are in the system because officers are

studying for the sergeant’s examination.

Judges play a role in coercing plea bargains, especially

at arraignments. If a defendant maintains his innocence,

judges will often set bail. However, if a defendant wishes

to plead guilty, he or she will often be released to return

for sentencing. Ironically, then, defendants who plead guilty

may be released, while those who maintain their innocence

can remain in custody.

Prosecutors are generally unreasonable in plea negotiations,

particularly where defendants are in jail. Very often the

ADA will offer a non-jail plea to a defendant. If the defendant

refuses the plea at arraignments, the ADA will, out of

spite, ask for bail on the defendant.

The Probation Department’s pre-sentencing reports

– 4 –

consistently cast our clients in very negative light. The

reports are always filled with comments that characterize

the defendant as a recidivist; which mock the defendant’s

claims that he has no children; that focus on the allegation

that a defendant lives with a woman to whom he is not married,

that he is born out of wedlock and so forth.

The above are all subtle forms of racism. However,

every day we are bombarded with more obvious racist comments

and treatment. Judges will often make comments like:

1. “The defendant is not even normal for Black people.”

2. “It is an abberation for an adult Black or Hispanic

male not to have a criminal record.”

3. “These people are all animals.”

4. etc.

Black and Hispanic attorneys who represent minority

clients have more sensitivity to the needs and problems of

indigent defendants, by and large. Just as clients are treated

with insensitivity by court personnel, so defense attorneys

who are minorities are often treated in the same way.

Very often, judges cut off attorneys when they are

making bail arguments or discussing some other legal point.

Court officers often abuse minority attorneys who try to

approach the well area of the court; it is not uncommon for

white court officers to mistake a minority attorney for a

defendant and for them to yell at minority attorneys to leave.

– 5 –

Other examples of different treatment of minority

attorneys include:

1. When a Black attorney passes through the security

scanners, a court officer will question that attorney about

her identity, but will not question white attorneys similarly.

2. Court officers will often yell at a minority attorney

to sit down before realizing that the person is an attorney,

which is embarrassing in front of that attorney’s colleagues

and shows her client that the attorney does not have respect

in the court. (C:!j-h)U.1. 117 ~fl.,)

All of this is evidence of the idea that all white

people in a criminal court are attorneys, but that any Black

person, no matter what they are wearing, is assumed to be

a defendant. (e.g. Licitra, Levin and Detherage)fnijottut((Kf.: 1 -;,.f15tfc.yJ,t1

The criminal justice system purports to be fair, just

and equal in its treatment.

This pretention is an illusion. Unfortunately, the

only thing that minorities can count on in the criminal

justice system is being treated unjustly.

As a Black attorney, I took an oath to be fair, ethical

and compassionate. However, my clients often perceive me

to be just another part of this indifferent, inhuman and

unjust system because of the way they are treated as minority

people in the criminal justice system.


Testimony before the

New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities

Presented by Michael z. Letwin, Esq.

June 29, 1988

The Association of

Legal Aid Attorneys

District 65 (UAW/AFL-CIO)

13 Astor Place

New York, NY


Views presented in this

testimony are those

of the author only.

You have heard many examples of the widespread and

systematic racism in the New York criminal justice system

experienced by minority attorneys, judges, court workers and


However, these experiences only reflect the fact that

the entire relationship between the criminal justice system and

the minority conununities is based on institutional racism

of the most profound sort.

We have to begin with the recognition that the minority

communities of New York City are economically, socially and

politically disenfranchised.

Although New York City is the financial capital of the

world, and despite the development boom that feeds Manhattan’s

financial sector, the city’s minority citizens remain plagued

more than ever by sweeping unemployment, low-wage jobs,

crumbling housing, a disgraceful education system, laughable

mass transportation and grossly inadequate social services in

every other area.

In addition, Blacks and Latinos in particular cannot

venture into many parts of the city without fear of being

assaulted by whites because of their race.

All of these conditions have been dramatically accentuated

during seven years of Reaganisrn and a decade of Edward Koch’s

mayordom during which most of the limited gains made during the

Civil Rights and Black Power movements of the 1960’s have been


The result is that there is a deep-seated and fundamental

– 2 –

hopelessness about every day life among a whole generation

of young minority people, particularly young Black and Latino

men. Not surprisingly, these conditions breed crime.

It would seem obvious that the solution to these conditions

and the crime that they breed lies in dramatically attacking

the conditions under which the minority communities are forced

to exist. Instead, the economic and political system is at

best indifferent and just as often hostile to the plight of

the city’s minority citizens. Simply put, the city’s rich

and their political representatives who control the city

government are unwilling to address the conditions in which

those communities live, in part because of the huge cost, and

in part because these conditions provide them with a low-wage

labor pool of minority employees.

It is hard to envision a more sinister institutional

racism than this approach to the city’s minority communities.

Reflecting this approach, the criminal justice system

serves as a club against minority people.

As a criminal defense attorney with the Legal Aid Society

in Brooklyn, I can confirm that the system displays routine,

institutional racism at every level.

Predominantly white police routinely assault and often

kill unarmed Black and Latino people with impunity:

Michael Stewart and Yvonne Smallwood are only two of the most

well-known examples. Defense attorneys constantly see cases

where our clients and their families have been assaulted,

– 3 –

and beaten by members of the police, corrections and other

“law enforcement” agencies. The guilty and innocent alike are

subject to arrest.

As you have heard, the treatment of minority defendants

is marked by days of pre-arraignment detention in filthy,

overcrowded .cells, often without any contact with their families;

by bail set beyond their means served in other unsanitary,

overcrowded and otherwise inhumane city jails; by racist

contempt on the part of many court personnel, prosecutors,

judges and even by some defense attorneys; by long periods

of pre-trial incarceration, threats of long sentences from

prosecution-oriented judges, all of which serves to coerce

guilty pleas from innocent and guilty non-white defendants;

and then, by all-too-often up-state imprisonment for years at a

time in facilities so terrible that white-collar defendants pay

their lawyers many thousands of dollars to ensure that if they

must be prosecuted, it will be in federal court where time,

if any, will be served in “Club Fed.”

The irony of all of this is that the criminal justice system’s

racist and inhumane treatment of minority defendants has absolutely

no impact on crime. The drug crisis is the prime example.

Crack use in particular has spread at an incredible rate,

and with it crime of all kinds has risen. In order to maintain

the highly-addictive crack habit, users commit a whole range

of other crimes, often against family members. Because of the

– 4 –

fantastic amounts of money to be made in selling drugs, growing

numbers of people are engaged selling the drug. Crack-houses have

proliferated thorughout the city’s neighborhoods. Crack gangs

with automatic weapons battle each other and the police in the

streets. The minority communities are, perhaps more than ever

before, the scene of drug-related crime and violence which has

touched the lives of virtually everyone in these corrununities.

The New York City criminal justice system cannot begin to

deal effectively with this situation, first of all because of

the nature of the drug tr~de. On an international level, the

federal government actively supports movements and governments

which run entire national economies based on the illegal drug trade:

the contras in Nicaragua, virtually every regime in South America,

and, until recently, Noriega in Panama. As long as these terrorist

governments and organizations suppress the indigenous peoples

in their societies, and make life comfortable for American

corporations, the U.S. government will back them. American banks,

in turn, live in large part off foreign loan payments from the

Third World, much of which depends in very large part on the drug


New York City, then, is reduced to going after the small-time

buyers and sellers of drugs, often through drug sweeps which

round up the innocent as well as the guilty. But most importantly,

arresting and imprisoning even the guilty has no impact on the drug

situation because while thousands of people are arrested and

– 5 –

imprisoned for drug sale and possession, there are unlimited

numbers of other people who are selling or using drugs because

it is the only way they perceive to survive in, or escape from,

the overwhelming hopelessness of their lives. New York’s draconian

drug laws, which often treat drug possession and sale much more

harshly than violent crime, do result in guilty pleas from many

defendants, guilty and innocent, who are simply scared to death

of being convicted and of spending much of the rest of their

lives in prison. These laws, however, have had absolutely no

effect on the drug crisis, for the reasons discussed above.

At the very least, the racist impact of the “war on

crack” will continue until these drugs are legalized and there

is a genuine assault on the drug crisis as the social issue that

it is.

On a broader scale, a solution to the institutionalized

racism of the criminal justice system, lies in a transformation

of the position of the city’s minority communities; not only

in its relationship to the criminal justice system, but in terms

of the distribution of wealth and power in the city as a whole.

If those in power remain unwilling to address this, the renewed

movements, particularly in the city’s Black community,

undoubtedly will.

Finally, I want to make clear that the institutional

racism of the criminal justice system does not stop at the door

of my employer: The Legal Aid Society.

– 6 –

Despite the fact that Legal Aid’s clients are overwhelmingly

Black and Latino, employees of the Society also face serious

institutional racism. There is a long and ongo~ng history of

minority attorneys being held to different standards in evaluations

and promotions than their white colleagues in evaluations and

promotion. There are very few minority supervising attorneys,

particularly in the Criminal Defense Division. The low salaries

paid to all attorneys at Legal Aid, which are lower than many

other public sector attorneys, let alone those in the private sector,

impact particularly on minority attorneys. As a result, minority

attorneys leave the Society at a rate even greater than white

attorneys. The Society’s treatment of its almost entirely non-white

support staff is even more of a disgrace. The support staff

is paid at so low a rate that even management admits it cannot

retain a sufficient number of employees to adequately perform

the everyday work of the organization. The working conditions

under which all employees, particularly support staff, are forced

to work, are pitiful: insufficient equipment, thoroughly

unrealistic workload and other conditions, some of which are


These conditions not only betray a lack of concern for

the position of minority employees in the Legal Aid Society.

~ather, this situation prevents the Society from effectively

carrying out the representation of its overwhelmingly minority


The Legal Aid Society, like the rest of the criminal justice

– 7 –

system, must begin to recognize and correct its institutional

racism, an effort that the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

·has all-too-often found the Society’s management unwilling to do.


Testimony of The New York State Association of Criminal

Defense Lawyers

before the

New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities

Presented by Russell T. Neufeld, Esq.

June 29, 1988

New York State Association of

Criminal Defense Lawyers

225 Broadway Suite 3300

( 212) 227-1127

The process of setting bail in our courts has a discriminatory

impact upon members of minority groups and poor people, and

this discrimination in bail results in further ~evestating ineqH~

ties in convictions and sentencing.

Discrimination in the bail system is the ~esult not only of

the bias of individual judges but of the very functioning of the

bail system. Since the essence of a bail system is that those

who can afford to buy their freedom get out, while those who

can’t, stay in, discrimination in the bail system is structural.

It is built into the system and can only be overcome when judges

are- conscious of the prot?lern and affirmatively;’., act to correct_–· ..

it. That is, since a thousand dollar bail may be reasonable for

a middle class person, but unreasonable for a poor person, a

court must take a defendant’s means into account when setting

bail. 1 And for those defendants who are so poor that any cash

bail is excessive, the courts should either release them on their

own recognizance or utilize pre-trial release, intensive supervision

programs to help guarantee a defendant’s return to court in

appropriate cases.

Judges have enormous discretion in determining whether a

defendant should be released on his own recognizance, whether

2 baii ~ould be set and, if so, how much. Whether someone is in

or out of jail prior to the disposition of their case is the

single most important factor in determining whether they are

convicted, and if convicted, the seriousness of the offense, and

the length of the sentence. 3 Since defendants of means are both

more likely to be released on their own recognizance, because

of greater community ties and able to make bail if bail is set,

a disproportionate number of those incarcerated prior to disposition

are poor people. And since a disproportionate percentage of

poor people are members of minority groups, a disproportionate

number of minority defendants are in our jails. For instance,

in New York City in 1987 the rate of white people in jail was

70% less than the rate of white people arrest~a.


Of course,

these figures may also reflect actual bias among the judiciary

in addition to the discriminatory functioning of the bail system. 5

Not only, are minority defendants languishing in jail in

disproportionate numbers, but, as a result, they are also suffering

discrimination in disposition and sentencing. As the

Columbia University Bureau of Applied Social Research study into

the question found:

Those people who must wait in jail for the

disposition of the criminal charges against them

because they’do not have enough money to purchase

their freedom are far more often convicted, far more

often given a prison term, and far more often given

a long prison term than those people who obtain their

release during this time.

This disparity in treatment between those detained

and those released is not accounted for by any factor

related to the merits of the cases, such as the seriousness

and nature of the charges, the weight of the

evidence and the presence or absence of aggravated

circumstances, prior criminal record, family and community

ties, or the amount of bail. For example, a

first offender who is detained in lieu of bail is more

than three times as likely to be convicted and almost

twice as likely to get a prison sentence as a recidivist

with more than ten prior arrests who is released •..

The differences in outcome between the two groups of

people, the detained and the released are accounted for

only by the fact of pre-trial detention itself.



‘ _,,.

There are several reasons for this shocking disparity.

First, the bail system works to coerce guilty pleas from those

who might otherwise have a valid defense to th~ charges against

them. Most criminal cases are misdemeanors and·approximately

one third of those are disposed of at arraign~ent through plea

bargaining. The plea-bargaining process uses a carrot and stick

approach with reduced charges and sentences as the carrot; while

the threat of staying in jail on bail is one of the sticks. Misdemeanor

defendants are routinely offered pleas to reduced

charges and non-jail sentences. These same defendants are told

that if they do not plead guilty, bail will b~ set. The mes~ag~

to poor clients is that if you plead guilty you can go home,

while if you assert your innocence, you stay in jail. So, a

significant percentage of criminal defendants who might otherwise

prevail in their cases decide to plead guilty to avoid jail.

The starkest recent example of this is the scores of transit

police arrests, all of minority group members for jostling and

sexual misconduct which were shown to have been wholly fabricated,

but, where, never-the-less, 71% of the defendants pleaded guilty. 7

Legal Aid Lawyers are constantly telling their indigent

clients that they have valid defenses or suppression motions and

advising the client to litigate the case. Frequently, due to the

threat of jail for failing to plead guilty, the client will plead,

rather than litigate. Another client, with the same charges, defenses

and suppression issues, but who has the economic wherewith-

all to post bail, is much more likely to litigate the case

and prevail or, if not prevail totally, then use those defenses

and suppression issues to obtain a better plea bargain. And


once someone has pled guilty and is arrested again they are, as

a result of the prior conviction, less likely to be released, or

to be offered as lenient a disposition as they would without the

prior conviction.

A second reason for the disparity between the disposition of

“in” and “out” cases is the greater leverage prosecutors have

over “in” defendants to exact guilty pleas. Once someone is incarcerated,

prosecutors frequently begin to stall. They don’t

answer motions in a timely fashion or provide discovery. They

are unable to proceed to hearings because of the unavailablity

of police witnesses who are invariably said to be on their regular

day off. The longer the defendant stays in jail without a

disposition, the closer he approaches the sentence offered by the

prosecutor in the plea bargain~ and the less sensible it seems

to go to trial and risk the much longer prison term that would

result with a conviction. Conversely, Judges and prosecutors,

who are also under pressure to dispose of cases through plea bargaining

rathe.c than by trial, know that an “out” defendant is

much less likely to voluntarily agree to serve a prison term,

than someone who is already imprisoned. Consequently, the plea

offers made to “out” defendants are generally less onerous than

, those made to “in” defendants.

Another reason “out” defendants fair better is that they are

better able to help themselves, their lawyers and their case,

than are “in” defe.ndants. A defendant who is out can track down

witnesses, and generally better aid his attorney in preparing for

trial. An “out” defendant can demonstrate to the court that he

is dealing with any underlying problems by entering a drug or


alcohol rehabilitation program, getting a job, or entering a

school program and, thereby, better convince a judge to give a

non-jail sentence rather than prison.

Not only do defense attorneys have a more difficult job

preparing for trial on an “in” case, but they :also have less

time to do it because “in” cases are pushed to trial before “out”

8 cases. Defendants who are incarcerated during trial are awakened

at 4:30 in the morning to be in court and generally look

poorly in addition to being less alert and helpful to counsel

than “out” defendants. Finally, the “tired” look is frequently

compounded by the difficulty of getting suitable clothes for

trial to jailed clients, thereby resulting in defendants looking

even less presentable to juries.

As judges have tremendous discretion in releasing defendants

or setting bail, the individual biases and predilictions of each

judge have a tremendous impact on bail decisions. Studies have

shown that all other factors being equal, there is tremendous

disparity between judges both in determining whether to release


defendants and in the amount of bail set.

In New York City the judges are greatly influenced by the


Criminal Justice Agency’s defendant interview report. The purpose

of the report is to recommend release or bail. One of the

primary factors C.J.A. takes into account is commuity ties. If

a defendant is employed, that is a strong basis for a recomrnen-


dation for release. Since unemployment rates are substantially

higher in minority corrununities, this factor works to discriminate

against minority defendants. Additionally, C.J.A. only confirms

community ties, including a defendant’s residence, through tele-


phone calls. Therefore, if a defendant doesn’t have a phone at

home, as the majority of poor defendants don’t, the report will

be marked “unverified community ties.” This w.ill frequently dissuade

a judge from releasing a defendant.


Bail reform has long been an issue in New York and there are

some i.m por t an t op t. ions th e cour t s ar1e a d y h ave i.n th· is area. ll

These include a ten percent cash bail alternative as well as pretrial

release, intensive supervision programs. Use of these

could lead to a more equitable bail system. Clearly there is

nothing in our present law to prevent judges ~rom eliminatin~racial

disparity in their bail and pre-trial release decisions.

What is needed is on going monitoring of judicial bail decisions

to insure reasonableness and non-excessive bail, and the absence

of racial discrimination. The judiciary should know that the

results of their bail decisions are being followed and that racial

disparity in the impact of those decisions will not be tolerated.

We also reconunend that judges be trained and sensitized

to the discriminatory effects of bail decisions and to the available

alternatives to incarcerating poor people.



1. C.P.L.R. §7010(6) Ex rel. Mordkofsky v. Stancari, 93 AD

2d 826 2nd Dept. (1983).

2. C.P.L. Art. 510

3. Bellamy v. Judges, A.O. 2d Dept. 1972, Piaintiffs’ Memorandum,

Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research

Study, (cited below as Bellamy).

4. According to the N.Y.C. Department of Correction, Inmate

Information System in 1987, 9% of those incarcerated by

the Department were white. According to the N.Y.S. Department

of Criminal Justice Services, in 1987 there were

273,090 adult arrests in New York City, of which 42, 175,

or 15.4% were of whites.

5. Nagel, The Legal/Extra-Legal Controversay: Judicial

Decisions in Pretrial Release, 17 Law and Society Review

3 at 508. Nagel only finds discrimination in the fact·

that “[w]hites had somewhat lower bail than blacks or

Hispanics, and they were slightly more likely to be afforded

a case alternatives.” She failed to also realize

that a $500 bail set on a poor person keeps that defendant

incarcerated while the same bail set on a middle class

defendant.means that that person is released.

6. Bellamy at 2-3.

7. N.Y.C. Transit Police Report of Lt. Dargan, 7/3/84, p.2.

8. Uniform Rules for N.Y.S. Trial Courts §125(1)(c).

9. Nagel at 506-508.

10. Nagel at 502.

11. See, Steelman, New York City Jail Crisis: Causes, Costs and

Solutions, The Correctional Association of New York, 1984

and Swirdoff, Bail Bonds and Cash Alternatives: The Influence

of Discounts on Bail-Making in New York City, Vera

Institute of Justice, 1986.

-7- —

In a survey of city law schools.

NYU nn1cs flrR in finding Jobi

(o,- graduates. Seep-,. l.

Kidder Taps Latham:

Latham & Waduns is one ol a

handful of firms Kidder Peabody

w,11 wrn to for ,a H&A wont.


: Wright Censured: The


Jud,c,al Conduct Comm,ss,on

. censured JustJce Bruce Wright

( but four d1ssent1ng memben saod

the penalty was too hanh. See

pap 4.

Upsig Show: Harry Lops,g

drew lou of media to the

Chernow wrongful-death tnal.


Opinion Service: On

grounds that exclusions are to be

narrowly construed. the

Southern Oistr1et orden a

medial malpnctice 1111Urance

amer to defand a doctor

attar he – convicted of

first-degree sexual abuse. SN

pap 24.


Juclp allow.d jury to

question wh:nea—” NYU dean ~tlown to 2 candlda..___ _______ ,4

rGoleltlt la—….-a-p-p-aa-.l· p-ole-s- —· 7

PAnrnisollcda _lu rn..a_ jo_il_w_ _ ,

cM.-afoprz jne p_a_n_a_ bit-firm ,

Finley parO!a’I want mon

time fOf”~—10

Cuomo pa bHI on lawyer

referralL..——- ……. 10

Firm i- appeal In rent dispute—·-··—-·” Lepl Aid says proNCUCOr

knew of fabe arTeaU—12


Ana11*——–· ”


C-tre krNt .. I

Chan. of V..U.—–11

Cot,.ww … t—–14

FM-a,,n ha5tttparnn rTn, …. 2’t

OnP11.1’rieh 32

Opiniaft Sehl It

ScrectT_. 27

~ ….. 42

Who’• … Whom–“


“-taurantGeetde _43



Partners PETtRm NDtSH (left) and MPHEHD AHHN AUSER,

members of Weil. Gotshal\ a.~sociate compensation commit·

tee. wanted to be the first to set ~tarting salaries for 1988.

Weil,G otshaSl ets

$76,000 GoingR ate


Wed. Gocshat & Manges has

couched off the annual ~tarring

SJ!arr debate by announcmg 1c

wdl pay members of the class of

, 1988 $76.000. The figure cops

lase year’s S7 l .OOO gomg race

by 7 percenc. Weal, Gorshal

also announced a restruccurmg

of compensation for alt nther

classes. with booscs ranging

from $ 15 .000 co more chan


The increases, which rook eifect)

uly I, have catapulted che

4′>0-lawyer farm into che role

h1sroracally played by Cra·.o1ch,

Swaine & Moore. which has

been che bellwether for bigfirm

sat.mes in New York.

Three vears ago, Cravach

iwnped scarcmg salaries by

S 11.000 co $65.000. For che

past cwo years, however.

Cravach’s increases for new

graduates have been more moderate,

causmg relief ac .many

competing firms.

“Our objective 1s co be ac che

cop – co gee ouc in fronc … said

anc1crusc parcner Peter Standish.

a member ot Weil. Got·

shal’s asM>C1aces compensac,on

commmee. Added c0mm1ccee

cha, r Stephen Dann hauser:

SEEW !Jl. GOTSIW1..’ 111G13E

LIUrc:11 y

~ – ) l I.\ I I I lJHl’l

U.Sv. .T eamsters

Steeredto E delstein


Judge Said to Have

RelatedC ase


Tk l S Ar:mm·\·, l)ftice

!.,sr wc·,k rnok lv.inr.1.L:e <>t

S,,uchern D1scr1, ·ui,s co bv·

pa.s, rhe lnm:rv ,rm.,llv us~d

rn .1s11l!n 1uJg,, rnd t’iit:d ,rs,ve civil r.i, · ct-eroni.: casc·

.,i,:.11nsc che Tcar·-,_r,rs b~fore .1

1 J~dge w,dt:ty· · ,·1ewed JS pro-


• Usong .1 local ruk i:u1d1ng

case ass1gnmenrs. prosecurnrs

s.i.1d the su1c alleging Mafia

domination oi che lncernanonal

Brotherhood nf Tr:-amscers

should be heard bv U .S Dis·

mer Judge David Edelstein because

1c as related co J. comparatively

m,nor civil racketeering

case alrr:-ady pendong on h,s


The prior case. nam,n,I? two

officials of Teamsters locals –

neither of whom 1s a Jdendanc

in che new suar – 1s men·

t1oned only chree times 1n 290

pages of documencs tiled wich

che new Teamsters suit. One nt

the mencwns as 1n a foocnore.

The seemingly slim connecc1on

becween che two ,ases has

llte l1.s. Attornc:y·s office

asked that its suit against the

Teamsters be assigned 10


i raised che question of whether

prosecutors maneuven:d en

place a ma,or case in rhe hands

nf a 1udge perceived as friendly

co their cause.

8,Jth Ass1scanc U.S Atcurney

R.1ndy Masero. chc lead

prosecutor on che new Te-am,

seers su1c. .ind a clerk tor Edel;

ceon denied 1ud~e shnpp1ng

by prosecumrs ,, pombh,.

! 1n this cast: or any other.

Arrnrd1n1? ro chc local rule.

; ic is up to” a Judge to decide

whether che link ,uggesced by .1


JudgesF ear Te.sJifyinAg boutR acism


The chairman of J pa:1el

probing che creacmenc of minoric,

es on che courts said lase

week he has been forced ro hold

clandesc1ne meetom:s with

Judges who fear rec;liac,on ,f

chev :est1fy about racism in rhe

state 1ud1C1al syscem.

Franklin Williams. who

chairs the: New York Stace Jud,.

c1al Comm1ss1on on Mono;,t,es,

said Judges have cold him they

are afraid chev m11:hr nm be reappo,

nced or· pro.:noced 1r’ rhe\·

go public with stones ,if pre1u·dace.

Concern about beong oson

hos office at 270 Broadway co·

handle calls from Judges afraid

crac1zed bv their brethren also

i prevented· some 1udges from

cemfy,ng., he added. , ot openly cooperac,ng. he said.

Maccers have grown so serious.

‘”Friends of cwo decades say chey

won’t even testify in che presence

oi my staff … rhe chairman

“This has floored me and

shocked me.”· Williams said on

an 1nrcrv1ew on June ,o as the

comm1ss1on held a second dav

of public hearongs in ManhJt·


I .1dded. the commissions oftices

.ir~ located an the same

building as the Office of Court

Adm1niscracwn·s headquarters.

W1l11ams said many pocencial

witnesses refuse co visit him our

oi tear >f beong seen by OCA

personnel. He has been forced

co mee! l’.ldges ,n resrauranrs .

and msrall a pnvace phone line ;

:’.iilton W il11ams. the deputy

ch,ef .1dm1niscranve 1udge for

New Yock C1cy Courts, onsisced

chat no 1udge would face recal1·

.1tion tor resnfy1ng before che ,

comm,ss,on. “l would hope chac

.my member of che judiciary. by

che very nacure oi their pos1·

non. w,ch rhe masses relvong on

chem for reiiei. would .i.lwavs

SEEJ UDC:EFSU lt. 1’111G31E

\finoritles commission

chairman FMNKUN WIL·

UAMS”:l llis has floored me

and ~hocked me.”


nc Jre going

1wyers. sa,d

,et 1ncreJSes

re-Jr \X’e’re

· rxplJt m·d

l.,r~e trrms

J,155J.S tht’\’

~school. He

t’ters co sru,

r’ rhe dJSs

drreccor 1)t

pm·are secs


·nmenr Jobs

ser sard, 24

,scrrcc accor

·n Counsel’s

,c agencies.

be closer co

·rcenr overI

begrn law

,rons Dean

ulO! has had

,r paymenrs

,s H0.750

wr ,it’ IJw

,I programs

1s Council.

11J rhar .tpols

chis year

:er rhis will

,on or nor.

Recencly I

>alias where

law schools

g over-full

raised chei r

asked how

ir wa1r lists

raised cheir


yourself co

‘d favorite:



:r recom’


•ng more

‘,Js divr,

c Jowdy

r al., has

rhe rage


‘”‘e plan.

nd hold on

oes our on

ker, which

,n updated


;horcfall in

udgrng by

!led such a

I might be

worch rhe



TeamsterCsa seS teeredb yG overnmetnot E delstein


pl,11nt1ff 1s Hrtln!,! tnrn.J/!h tor him ro keep

borh ,L11t5. EJdsrcin Jc’Cc·prl’d rhe ‘lew

Tc:.1msrc:rcsa se·o n June 28. rhc:J ,I\· ,. w,b

tiled. ·

“Ir’s nor somt’ch1ni: rh.11 \\t’ u,u!J h,\\c·

d11m· Jn\’Ch1nc .1bour


• • \l.1srro ,.11J. [,kim:

rn s (ltrk. · ,\f 1ch.1d “h\. .,i:rt·c·,! · 1 r’,

cht· 1ud~cs s.iy-so. noc rht· L’.S Arwrnt

·v·s … h,. s.111.l.

Bur one wh,ct cnll.,r trunin,d Jett.’OSt’

IJwvcr. who requc:src-d .rnonvmin. V.JS

lt-ss u:rrarn.

·11 1s nbv,nusl\’ ,it· ,·,mcern rn rht L’.S

Arrorner s or’tice · 1uJg,. /!t’CS J n:.illy

b1i: case:,” rhe ,morney s.11d. “It’ there’s J

wa\’ ro do ,r w1rh1n rhe rules. I Jon ·r rh,nk

rh;c che U.,S . Accorney·s ot’tice ,s ,l!1>1nc~o

ignore ,r.


Detcnsc l,1wvers Jt’Slr,bc EJc:ls[l’lll JS

on,. ,>i thl’ tou,cht·r .ind mllrt’ l’rn-.a:”‘:l’rnlTIL’O1t

u<.J.cc1sn Fiile)’ Squ.1re. Hl’ ,.,·a.,1 pro1nct

·d r,> thl’ b(‘n,h tn !I.J5 I .itter \\’ork,

n.l.! ,,·,L·n )’c~1rs1 ;,r thl’ Dq·.1rrt11L·1H,, t’

llhtlll’ 1n 111brsa nl!111lt!r ,,m ,iss1sc.,nrl . S

:,rrnrnc1· in rhl’ :-i,,~ ch~rn D1’tr!l·c co ,IS’1SC·

.,nr L’.S . . ,rrornl’\’ \!ener.d.

In rhe· 1,ros he· l’rc·\!Jt·d ,n·,-r cht’ .~m·l’tnmL

·nr’, m:1r.Hhon hur ul111n.,r,·h· .,banJ111wJ

.Htl’mpr Ct> br, ur IB,\( I~ ,I c t\’,l

Jntttru,r .1n111n. F/.r .\111,n,,m Lm ;..,· :eporctd

1n llJ~2 r~1r rhmu,chour che 1,vt”;

tr I :tc: ot’ rh,. CJS, EJl’lsrem ruled riir rhe

i:o”ernmenr 1n –i ,it’ -9 ,oncesced mnc,

ons .inJ susr.11ntd (,U pt:ru:nr o( rhc: go\’ernmenr

s ob1ecnnns JS oppmr:d co tewer

rhan , percent of IBM’s.

In a. more recenr criminal case. Edc:1-

srern sided 11nrh rht.’ i:overnmenr when

prosecurors balked ar h.iv,ng c,> nor,iy

lawyers represennni: unind,cced suspects

rhar rnformancs were beinc used co ,n·;esngare

che,r dic-nrs. •

In 1985. Edelstein ruled rh.1r .1 dt!ense

lawver 11.•hosed 1<:nr had been inJ,ccc:d

couid bt: ,d,p<l(.’n.1ed r.,r <Jlll’Slll>n1n,:

.,bnur rhe ,ourtl’ nt’ h,s It-es. Th.,r ,kc “‘”n

“.IS rl’,·t’tst’d on .tppt:.11


Souchnn D11rrr,r Ruh: ! ~ n·qu,rc, .,

f”J.l1nt11fC t) noct’. ,10\’ rd.1Ct’U( l\’,I l.lSl’S

penJin,c w1rhin che J”mcr whc:n ttl,n.c .1

ct I’d suit. Th” nt’wer c,15t: 1s retl-rrl’J to rhl’

n,J ~t o\’ersce in.i: rhe nlJ,·r .1,r 111n. .ind

rha; 1ud!!e Jeudcs wh .. rhi:r ro kc:(:p rht·

new ,.15c or send rr rn thL· lom:r1·. int,>rm.

illv known .15 “thee wheel.” ·

\Vhen t<:Jtral rms<‘curnrs f,k-J su1r

Juni: 28 .iga,nsc the lnrernat1<JnJI Brnrht:r·

t’unds to :nvesrmenc comp.1-


.\n ,nd,crmL·nr rc·rurne<l 111 ,\pnl

,h.trl!t’J rhr cwu mL·n “·,ch (ur:sptrtn.i: ,,.

, 1ul.1tcc’ hl’ R,1tkctl’~:rl nth;c·ncc,J .ind Cor•

rupr Orc.1n1z.1r111n.-s’ .ct. The:’ Wt’nt

11ccd1t1L ‘ “hc:d .,nJ 11..,rs. ,nJumJ·; .,;.,n.:rn·c!

r,, [ddsre,n ·

A rl’IJteJ C1l’d su1r w.15 fikJ h, rhe :.:u,··

l’rnml’nt on ,\l.1\ 11. ,JS<‘ ·Jlso ~·tnr

rhruu..:h chc-lotcl’r·; ..n J wJs .15’11:0t:dr o

luJci R,ch.ird Daronco. Afrer Damnco

·.,, ,L,· :nurderc,d :’-I.iv 21. rh<: civil case w.1.1

ri:asst,l!nt’J rn JuJge Vinctnr BmJerick.

On Junl’ I. rhe suit was rr.msterred co

Edl·bce,n w,rh his consenr.

S,,J” .,rrnrnev J” Ann HJrris, who rep-

Sold i.Jenz Di .n..i.c t Rzt ie 15′ d<!fi’U, !S related casesa s

those that. among other things. present common

cJue,Wionqs/ !cu,· m zc~/cu.o:rt .c ui,efom thes ame

source or suhstctJlfialfsri milar tmn:.:.c1ct1.~0. ·1 z..

h•••d ,,, Tc.,rn,ru,. rlw C..11nrn1,St,1o1111L ,

Ce1s.1: -..:nsrr.1., nd t’i 1ndi\ 1du,tl Jl’tc-t1d.1nr,.

thi:y nnrnl rh.,r rile· ,,LsLw· .,s rl’i.trcd

to l .S. t. /….,,11,:,:.,11d.\l.,/.,•,t, u,v,,d, r.u.:kt··

re<.:r1n.!,,:. :.L”i.<1.1: ,:,1111t\\r, :n ot”f1t…1.1obt·

Stl’rS io … il., ,n :\’l’w York.

f..,,,g h.u.l been rrJnsterrl·d w fakhrt·in s

..:ourr Jusr four w<:eks earlrc,r under., sc1pul.

Hmn .1ppnl\:ed bv deti:n,t· l.1wyers .1nd

M.1Sm>. who supc-rv1scs rht’ JSs1sranr U.S.

.1ccorneyh andlin.c the· Lun,Lc! JSe. The: Jerendanrs

– John M.1honc:yJr . secrccaryrre-.

isurer of Local 808, which n:prc:senrs

United P:ircel Service workers .. rnJ John, secretary-rrea.surer of Teamsters LocJ.

J ll04. which represenrs Long lsl,rnd

R.iil Road workers – are accused of raking

kickbacks in return for sreering union

r,·w,1r, \l.1h1111t·,1.1·. 1dc he rr.,,,.,;_.rr o Edd,

rl·1n. rt..·quL·irn! t,: rhc: .i.. :,1\ rnenc. d1J

nur :-.c..Trunn u~u.d .1r rhl· rrn:1.

·11111,1kc:lsn.1ro t,c:11St:l·nr , ,lllill11l tkc·

rh,11 c,> i:o ‘” clw ,.tmc· Jude, ::1J rht’\’ do

rhJr m;,c,neh· rherc:. JS l,;nc: .h rhc ;i\d

.1l11on ,s w,;rd-riir-wnrd rc:.,ceJ co thl’

cr1min.1I, l(tl<JO.,. Harris sa,d.

The ct\’il c’;ISc.1.-c.1rnscL inc .,nd M.,huney.

wh,ch h.1s ~n sr.iyed pi:nJtni,: thl·tr

a1m1nal rrral rh,s till. Sl-eks ., rerm.,nenr

1n1uncr1on proh1b1rini,: chem from parr1(1-

pat1ng ,n che atfa1rs ot’ che loc.tls .ind Jisgorgc:

mc:nr of chtir illegal protics.

MJSrro s.i,d rheir case .iml rhc: Tc·.1msrers

su,r 1)\crlapped on le.c.d qu’c-snons

.1nd tanual issues, anJ becJus,: boch in””‘

“”J rhe union, tell wirhin rhc· bi,unds

11tR’ uic I~ The rule Jefinc:s,·d u,

·” ciHhe clue. Jnt1111i: nrhc:r ,ti,n~

J’rt·~<·nr 1,,,t1n1mon 4ut·,rion, ,,t L,,, .l:

Lit:’. 1,r .trist· from rhl· ,,tmc..· ,11t1rc..l· ,•r ,u

,c.,nr,.dl\’ ,1md.1r rr.111><LH h


L.,r \\c·d:s ><Ill .1i.:.11nscrh ,· T,·.,11hc,··

t,kJ rn L’ S. Am,rnc·)· RuJ11lph lrnd,.,:

se,·k, rn ousr .,m· union h11.1rJ nwmb,·

ct1nl’ttted ,it racker(‘er,n,c .ind ·’l’l'<111tr

rn:>Cl·t· co 1>vl’rser the union·s <>(X’r,1r1111

.,nJ dr:an up ,rs t:lenmns.

In ,1 11 ,-p.1,i:e cnmrl,1inr . .1 1115-p.1,1

rnl’mnrandum ,it law .mJ .1 – 2-ra.i:c: Jc:d.

rac,on by ,\fJSrro. prosr:curors “ucl,n,

mnre chan J down uvd .ind t’rrm1n,1Ip m

t·cuc,uns mv,,lv,nc rhe un111n. Ch,

.im,ini: rhem were.cht C.,>mrn1-s1″n’· ‘”

in wh


1,·h rhe r.1nkm,c boss,., ut’ ~c·w Ynr~

f1vt’ ,\’i.i families were c11n\’1\’rtd. ,11

rhr: Gl’novese !’Jmil;- CJse. which pr,

sl’ntl’d L0 1·1den,t· 11f m”b ,ntlul’nct·

In .1nnnunun.i: rhe ~uir. (iiuli,tn1 ,.,

rh<:c urrl’nr T,·,11n,cc:rsl, ·.,dt•r\ ‘h,l\t· ,I,.,

,,rru.1111n’ <>thrnt.r:1 1c .1kcc: hc·1rt tn1111l,1.,,

lr11m the· :’-l,1t’ia.:.

The: p.,pers 1n the T<:amHl’rsc ‘J.SLc,’ c,

nnh ti,ur msr.inccs s,ncl’ 1•r- when rl

inc:·rn.,rn,nal uninn rt:r,<lrted corrupr1c

.,s ., h.,,,sr i,r 1mr,<1sm,.i1: rrusteL·shrp 1111

li11..1LO ni: ut rhe four ,nscanec:s ,nvuh,

J..,,·,11/,; ()8, rhe L’PS where John :’-l.

hont’v Jr. ,, Sl-CrecJr}·-rreasure. r

·Jn rl1.1r .:,lSl’, 1mmediarc:lv Jtrcr rh

cemporar\’ rrusrt-cshrp. rhc Stl~ ot’ rhe rrt

rrusr, … sh1p union head ,15sumed powt·

.ind h.1, >1nce bec-n rnJicred for labor r.1ck

c’tl’i:rtnc. · ,\f.ismi’s Jeclarar1on sa.,d.

In .1~1 nrc:r.·1ew’.. \lasrro .1rgued char rh,

Lnn.i: .mJ Mahoney (ase was sm>n,i:ly n:

l,,rt-d ro the l.irger Teamsrers suit bc:c.1u,,

,r \h11u;s Jn “1mporranr example of ch,

1:1d11rrln’ remedy local rnrrurnon.”

JudgeFs earT estifyinAgb ouRt acismin theC ourts


have the backbone co speak out,” Jud.i:e

Williams sa1J ,nan interview.


The rnmm1ss1on was chartered by

Chief Judge Sol Wachrler of the Court of

Appeals in January co recommend ways to

eliminate racial bras rn the courts. More

than l ~O wrcnesses scarew,de have cesrified

before rhe ..:ommission. which is nor

expected ro release a final report unnl


Among rhe alleganons made during

IJSr week’s hearings were rhese:

• James Morton, a clerk m che Civil

Branch of scare Supreme Courc in rhe

Bronx, cemtied char courr ofticers have

·volunrarily segregated themselves.” esrablishrng

separate locker areas ior blacks.

Hispanics and wh11es. In Jn inrerv1cw,

Louis Fusco Jr., rhe court’s .idminiscrarive

1udg~,’ said rhe allegar1on was -rocally untrue.

• A black temale court officer claimed

she was demored .ifrer bem.i: elev.ired ro

l’.apr.1rn parcly bec.iuse whrre ,>t’ticl’rs

launched a perinon dril’e seekin.c .in 1nvesr1gac1on

of how she gor promored. The

officer, Vivian S,nglc:wn. mid rhe panel,

“The ma1omy of wh1te court <1ffict’rs. ire

from Long Island. There’s a fear rhey teel

[.1bour rhe City and rhe people who live

here) which becomes anger.”

• Some judges and attorneys rourinely

discounr the rtmmony of blacks and Hispanics.

Jeanne Thelwell, dcpury ,ounsel

for rhe scares Office of J\lt-nral He.ilrh and

a memberofrhe Women’s Bar Asst)CiJtJOn

of New York Scace. cold che panel: “When

I used co be asked if I had good wrcnesses

for my cases, I began co undtrsran<l I was

being asked 1f I had white wrcnesses …


During the he-Jrtn/ls, clerks Jnd court

officers who recounreJ srories ,>t J1scrim1·

nacron roucrnely expressed (oncern rhJr

their cesr1mony might hurt rhe,r chances


Bur Chairman W1ll1ams .1ppe.1redm osr

rroubled by rhe 1udges wh11 d10Sl’ tll k~p

rhe1r concerns prrvarc. Joseph Will,ams.

Jn elecred scare Supreme Court 1umce

from Brooklvn. reSC1iied rhac ,1ppo,nced

justices who Jo nor ha”e the secucrcy ot’

10-vear eleccrve ri:rms “rhink rhc\·re rn

jeop-.irdy .1nd chere will be recJlia·c,on 1f

chey resell)’ …

“Is rhar rhe .umnsphne ot’ nur courcs:”

Ch.11rman \Xlilli.ims .1SkeJ.

Replied Judge \X!ill1ams: “Thev prob.ibly

dnn·r believe the chief judge is rncour,1g1ng

chem …

Chiet’Judge Wachtler said in an inrt’r,

·,ew char rhe tear l)f rerriburion ,unoni:

1udges 1s “mosr unfortun.ire anJ n:.crur~blc.-.

. I don·r know who wnulJ cx.1,t

char kind nf rerriburion. Ir (ercainlv

wouldn’t come from anyone rn the hicrarchial

1udic,al scrucrure because we are the

uncs who .1re most .1nx1ous anJ inreresred

,n derermrnin,c where rh,s b,as exists. rt

indeed ,r J,X”s. If we didn’t wanr people ro

come forward. we: wouldn’t have formed

[rhe panel] .1nJ urged rhe public hearings.

Civil Cnurr Judge ~fargJrer Taylor.

who s,rs ,n Housing Ciurt in Manhattan,

.1lso discussed rhe pressure on jud.!,.’CrSo

conform. C.1ll1ng rhe Civil Cciurc system J

“d1crJt11rsh,p,. . she said: “Ir is made dear

ch.H ch~ .1cmosphere and perception ,s. if

yt)u arc cmic.11 [of rhe sysrem). you v.•on r

be [ele”ared to Jnj .icnng Supreme Court

1usr,ce. wh,c·h ,s rhe goal ol most people in

mv (ourr. Ii \’DU don’t evict or conv,cr,

y<;U Wt)n C be looked (Jn favorably. –

Scare Surrc:me Court Jcisr1ce Israel Rubin,

clw .1dm1n1srrat<Jort ‘rhe Civil C(Jurr.

,.uJ ,n .,n 11irc·r.·1L·w”l . rh,nkJudge T.1ylor

1, dorng .i J,sservr((: co .ill hcrcolkagues ,n

service now 1n rhe Supreme Court.”

Thi: ma1llricv ,if w,rncsses at chc he-Jr

ings. whu:h w~re aJvcrcrscJ 1n subwe1ys

ll!fol’ builJincs .ind courrh,>uses. seem!:’,

~o be .ircorn~vs Jnd courr l’mpli)\’l'<‘S

rTht·1r resr1mo~y rt:vc:alt'<l a percepr1u1 racism in chc rnurcs 1s sysrcm1c –

fr(Jm the u>urt ofticc:r who mistakes J Hisp.

1nic lawyer for a Jc-ti:ndanr co J 1uJ.ce

wh,1 cells a Jeti:ndanc .it a had hearrm:.

“You shouldn’t have commirced che cr1~e

,fvou Jidn’r wane robe in 1ad.”

·chairman Williams said, “Based on

rhe resrimonv co dace. I can’r sav rhe bias

level ,s crir1~al . . bur ,c 1s cie;ir ro us

rh<:rt rs .i problem in rhe courrs .rnd re is

much more rhan perceprron. Ir rs rc:al:ry.. .

Mi Iron Williams s.ud he.-was mv1rc.-de n

.mend the he-.1rings bur declined. ·rw

made my “iews known.” sa,J rhe CHy·s top

judge. retemng ro pasr .icknowledgmenrs

,)f che perception of br.u rn rhe courrs. “I

want ro ler che people who usually Jren·c

he-.1rdb e he-.1rd.”

The pane! heard a wrde arrar of suggl-S·

c1ons for .1ddressrng che problem, indud-

10,1:c:r eating inexpensive.e-anng and parking

facilines ior poor people who nir<:n

sp,:nd <‘nrire d.iys in ,·ourr bu1ld1n1,:s·.

1>pr:n1ng day-cJrt: ci:nrt·rs ,n rhc cuurr,:

.ind ,m reasing che number ,>t· bdmgu.11

<:mplo\’ees. …J

. “‘ bespectacled rotuna

log-control officer. He

ed to have been a police

j, but he could not pass

)t be t ramed to arrest a

:arm 1er told the group.

· re disappointed about

Y you older people who

much to do and want to

.uspects. I hate lo be the

t, but we’re going to dis-

The New York Times/Peter Fl’ftd

Keyser, W. Va .• talking

ight, at the Port Authorar

in a row. “She discovers

mgs, and we learn about the

. uncommon, officials of the

for strong attachment! to be

tween the children and their

)Ut 60 percent of the visitors

d back by the families.

Yoder, a host from Hanly,

ed a touching anecdote about

1gster. Last summer, she

nat one of her former Fresh

:en. Jemel Cottingham, was

ibout dropping out of school.

iaded him. with the coopera’

parents. to spend this school

er house and attend the local

h school. Jemel returned las

1s home in the Flatbush area

yn. Ms. Yoder said, “more at

himself and ready to return


st the good old golden rule,”

d. .. I hope that somebody

.t,he same for my kids if they

oornooo \…1 l1U\.. “._. • .._ .. •~o~, •••- •

eye, to the volunteers. He told them

that for $75 they could get together

with their neighbors and buy a personalized

neighborhood Cnrne Watch

street sign from a company m California.

‘McGruff Is a Business’

”We would have liked to have gone

with McGruff,” he said. referrmg to a

cartoon dog in a trenchcoat and

“But 1t ·s an awtully expem,1ve prugram

to get into,” Mr. Cormier said.

“McG ruff 1s a business.” Chief DeGrace

added with disdain.

At the end of the meeting. 16 people,

most of them older women, signed up

to part1c1pate. Before they did. a man

in th audience raised a question. “If

you· a quiet neighborhood.” he

aske an you go to the next street


New York Panel ears Charges %~m4ia’!si fn, J_ud,icfia lS ystem

New York City judges. lawyers and

court officers portrayed a Judicial system

permeated by bigotry and racism

at hearings last week before a state

commission investigating racial bias in


Testimony before the New York

State Judicial Commission on Minorities

ranged from accounts of black and

Hispanic lawyers being mistaken for

defendants and subsequently harassed

by. court officers, to harsher bail and

sentencing decisions being imposed on

min<>rity-group members.

“The criminal justice system is still

rolling along as if it were in the 18th

:entury,” said Justice Kenneth N.

8TOwneo f State Supreme Court in

s. who spoke with quiet anger of

the injustices he said he had witnessed

as one of 77 blacks among New York

State’s 1,161 judges.

CommJssloa Created ln January

Finding ways to increase the numbers

of minority judges, lawyers and

court officers is one of the mandates of

the commission, which was created

last January by Chief Judge Sol Wachtler

of the State Court of Appeals at the

request of the New York Coalition of

Blacks in the Courts.

The commission, which has already

held hearings in Albany and Buffalo, is

also studying the extent to which minorities

fail to use the courts in seeking

redress for grievances because of a

lack of confidence in the fairness of the

courts. The commission will issue its

findings and recommendations in

January 1990.

The commission held hearings

Wednesday at the State Office Building

in Harlem and Thursday at the World

Trade Center.

Blacks and Hispanics make up about

20 percent of New York State’s population.

but account for less than three

percent of the state’s 50,000 judges and

lawyers, the Metropolitan Black Bar

Association said. The number of As1an

and native American Judges and lawblacks

and a fifth of all whites believed

that the judges and courts in New York

City favored whites.

“Our court system has not convinced

mmonties that they will get their day

in court,” said Judge Yvonne Lewis of

Brooklyn Civil Court.

A Lack of Minorities

Minorities are poorly represented

among non-Judicial personnel, a clerk

in Brooklyn Supreme Court, David Correa,

testified. In Brooklyn, where approximately

20 percent of the population

is Hispanic, three out of 280 court

‘We have made it

to the door but

not beyond the

reception area.’

officers are Hispanic, Mr. Correa said.

The situation is the same wnh courtappointed

lawyers. Mr. Correa sa1d,

adding that m Brooklyn 12 out of almost

500 such lawyers are Hispanic.

Archibald Murray, the executive director

of the Legal .Aid Society. said

that judges often address black and

Hispanic Legal Aid lawyers by their

first names. and their black cltents are

often called “boy” or “girl.” ‘

Also testifying was Justice Bruce

Wright of State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

who said that blacks are

largely excluded from “the mighty law

firms” that serve as breeding grounds


“In order to be appointed, apparently

you have to know somebody. and we’re

not the kind of people who frolic in the

Governor’s Mansion, and Gracie Mansion,”

he said.

yers is statistically insignificant, the GIVEH APPYS UMMERM EMORIES:

association said.

“We have made it to the door but not GIVE TO THE FRESH AIR FUND

beyond the reception area,” said Ilene

Milett, testifying on behalf of the Asneeas

al uuLLu111 1…u11::.LnuL1:: taxes. Wlltcn

are not levied evenhandedly on the …

basis of neutral prmc1pals but are required

from developers on a case by

case basis.”

The definition of a related amentty

was “one which addresses a need direc_

tly ansmg from the project. i.e ..

which has a nexus to the project. and

which is ident1f1ed during the environmental

review Process; or is otherwise

specified by law.”

‘Disincentives to Development’

Although the study was prompted bv

a concern thac community boards were

abusmg the process of bargaining with

developers. the committee found that.

no one was blameless.

“Arguments have been made to us

that elected offi~\als can properly be

given responsibihty to require unre- ·

late~ amenities. though unelected community

boards should be kept out,” the ·

report said. “The reason given is that ·

elected officials are accountable to the

voters and can be controlled at the

polls. –

“We believe. however, that deals ·

made by elected officials show all the.

infirmities” – that is, “distortion of ‘

decision making, ad hoc and uneven- :

handed taxes or fees, distortion of•’

spending priorities and capital budgets,

creating disincentives to development.

“Elected officials, moreover. who ·

could point out to the vocers-their role

in obtaining the unrela’41d amenities 1f ;

anything may be under gaiater p~s- ·,

sure to make such deaJs.” ·

For Earlier Involvellleat

As for the community boards, the report

said, they “should be given the opportunity

to redirect some of their

energies” by participating in the initial

phase, when the scope of an env1ronmental-

1mpact statement is being


“Early involvement of communny

boards.·· the report said, “will genera

Hy reduce any mystery surrounding

the plans of developers and central

city authorities and reduce the likelihood

of confrontations and consequent


Asked about the prospect of increasing

the boards’ role. Mr. Koch said, “I

don’t have any negative responses. but

I don’t have sufficient information to

accept it.”

Instead, he said, he “wouJd have to

be guided” by the chairwoman of the

Planning Commission, Sylvia Deutsch.

Speaking generally about the report

after it was delivered to him last

Wednesday at City Hall, the Mayor

said, “Its contents will be given the

most thorough consideration.” But, he

added. it was too early to say when any

guidelines might be advanced.

The committee was headed by Sheldon

H. Elsen. Its members were Merrell

E. Clark Jr .. David C. Condliffe.

Kathleen lmholz. Mark A. Levme, Jerome

Lipper and Hector Willems.

sociation of Black Women Attorneys.

A poll conducted earlier this year by

The New York Times and WCBS-TV

News found that almost half of all







OISPU Y ARTS, CASE NO. lll-11010(C!}

ts Schoolwork to Music “DEBTOR.” ;

···-···············-·····—-··-······–·····——–·–······· X



– . . . • •• ‘””~ .~ …….. !he DEBTOR ‘”‘OP





~.~~~, ..


rt·\ 7

/ :-;.i ,..,•

._. :,•.;· ;rI



z-MadeE than Allen luxury Chairs.

tow to add that extra chair to your home. Georgetown Manor offers

Y to choose a very special collection in a select group of beautiful

the meticulous tailorin~ that Ethan Allen is famous for. Thev are


~~. trb,e ~ 1’t: I

Courts Biased,

State Panel Told

Blacks and other minorities are not receiving

fair treatment in the courts of New York because

of racist attitudes and structural flaws in the svstem,

witnesses yesterday told a special judidal


The witnesses, appearing at a public hearing of

the ~ew York State Judicial Commission on ~fi.

noritiP.s at the Harlem State Building, expressed a

variety of concerns, ranging from unfair sentencing

practices by judges to racist attitudes among

those working in the courts.

·’There is a subconscious racist attitude among

some of the officers,” said Veronica Singleton. a

court officer in Manhattan. “They make racist remarks,

and call people derogatory names without

realizing what they just said.”


Russell T. Neufeld of the New York State A.ssocition

of Criminal Defense Lawyers called for a rearm

of the bail system, including 10 percent cas_\l

ail alternatives and supervised pre-trial release.

”Discrimination in the bail system is the result

not only of the bias of individual judges but of tbe

very functioning of the bail system,” Neufeld said.

“Since the essence of the bail system is that those

who can afford to buy their freedom get out, while

those who can’t stay in, discrimination in the bail

system is structural.”

The 16-member commission was appointed last

January by Chief Judge Sol Wachtler to determine

if min on ties are receiving fair represent.ation in

the jucL-_.J .l system.

The ::ommission’s mandate includes determining

the extent to which minorities under-utilize

the court system, reviewing current hiring practices

to determine if minorities are fairly represented

in the court system and evaluting J’J’lCbods

used to select judges.

Herb Jones, assistant supervisor court reporter

in a Manhattan court, saw ~he public hearinp as a

step in the right direction and said he hoped it

would encourage young blacks to pursue their educations

with the aim of getting jobs in the courts.

The commission has set a second hearing from 9

a.m. to 9 p.m. today at Two World Trade Center.

– Curtis L. Taylor

Man Pleads Guilty

In Death of Guard

A Harlem man pleaded guilty to second-degree

murder yesterday stemming from the stabbing

of a security guard in a downtown department

store last December.

Joseph Gooden, 38, of 1825 Madison Ave.,

agreed to plead guilty if prosecutors recommendi!!!d

the minimum prison term of 15 years to life.

On Dec. 1, Gooden argued with Bobby Jenkins,

44, of 305 W. 143rd St., after Jenkins, the unarmed

security guard at Modell’s at 280 Broadway, accused

him of attempting to shoplift. Police said

Gooden pulled a knife and warned Jenkins that he

would return.

The next day, Gooden came back.. to da store

and stabbed Jenkins in the chest, neck, bais and

head during a struggle between two racb oi abirta.

During the a~ a byst.ander ran from the

store and called over two mounted police””elicers

from. Ci_tyH 8!_1P ar~ ~~ ~ed.b ut.~ ~

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: