Court Opinion

ID: 9472817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:11:50.295908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:10.066217
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in Chief Judge Feinberg’s characteristically thoughtful opinion. However, I would add a note of warning regarding the risks that appear to be inherent in the Eastern District’s method of assigning “Brooklyn” criminal cases to Uniondale-based judges.
The trial of the present “Brooklyn” criminal case before a Uniondale-based judge in Uniondale rather than in Brooklyn required the defendant to make a round trip of 60 miles a day to be tried before a jury selected from a panel claimed to have fewer black persons on it than would have been present had the case been tried in Brooklyn. The inconvenience and potential prejudice to the defendant were excused by the trial judge on the ground that trial in Un-iondale would secure the prompt and efficient administration of justice by saving needless travel time on the part of the Uniondale-based judge. However, at oral argument it was disclosed that while some “Brooklyn” criminal cases are assigned to Uniondale judges (such as the present case assigned to Judge Wexler) simultaneously a substantial number of “Long Island” civil cases are assigned to Brooklyn judges, who then hear them in Brooklyn (or occasionally Uniondale). This raises the question of whether, if there is such an abundance of “Long Island” cases, the prompt and efficient administration of justice would not be furthered by having the Uniondale judges preside over the “Long Island” cases rather than hear “Brooklyn” criminal cases. If there are sufficient “Long Island” cases available to keep a Uniondale judge busy, I find it difficult to escape the conclusion that when a Uniondale judge is assigned a “Brooklyn” criminal case and transfers the trial of that case from Brooklyn to Union-dale, it has (perhaps understandably) been done for the judge’s convenience only. See United States v. Fernandez, 480 F.2d 726, 730 (2d Cir.1973). The risk, of course, is that if such a trial caused demonstrable prejudice to a defendant, a conviction would have to be vacated.