The Wall Street Journal
April 7, 2004; Page A18
Shotgun Justice
Editorial
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108130083120076288,00.html
While the tabloids were having a field day recently with the signals a juror in the Tyco trial was allegedly flashing, elsewhere in Manhattan lawyers for the firearms industry were asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to recuse a judge they say is sending his own "OK" signal to plaintiffs in a highly contentious gun case.
At the center of this storm is federal Judge Jack Weinstein, who is well known for his creative interpretations of liability laws. The case is City of New York v. Beretta, which is an effort to use the public nuisance laws to blame the gun industry for urban violence. The industry has ample reason to fear that it will never get a fair shake in Judge Weinstein's courtroom.
Let's start with the snarky way this case ended up in his court. In theory, case assignments are random. But in practice no fewer than 11 gun-litigation cases have been steered to Judge Weinstein. Plaintiffs do this by requesting their case be sent to judges hearing "related" litigation. Properly used, this has a legitimate purpose in making courts more efficient. But when it's abused -- as it is here -- it amounts to judge-shopping by the plaintiffs bar.
The original case was NAACP v. Acusport, in which the NAACP sued a large group of gun manufacturers, importers and distributors on the grounds that the industry represented a public nuisance because it allowed its firearms to fall into the hands of criminals. As the National Law Journal stated baldly, lawyers targeting the gun industry steer their cases to Judge Weinstein because they know they "might not succeed in any other courtroom in America."
The industry has good reason for suspicion. The Second Circuit had previously turned over a key gun case handled by Judge Weinstein to New York's state appeals court, which rejected the claims. While this case was working its way up the appellate ladder, the state had filed a public nuisance lawsuit against the gunmakers. This too was rejected decisively by New York courts.
But Judge Weinstein was not deterred. Last July he rightly threw out the NAACP case on the grounds that the organization had no standing to bring such a case because it had not suffered any special injury. Alas, he did not stop there. He devoted pages of his ruling to findings of "fact" that went way beyond the NAACP's allegations and laid out a road map for how another plaintiff -- hint, hint -- might get around the problem.
That's just what the City of New York did in Beretta. Judge Weinstein now proposes to handle Beretta all by himself by importing the rulings and findings of fact he put down in NAACP. Not only does this prevent the defendants from challenging any of his assertions in NAACP, it puts the judge in the position where he can finally get what he wants without the annoyance of a trial or jury. Surely it says something about his zeal that when he was asked to recuse himself, he refused even the routine process of hearing arguments.
It's rare that an unwilling judge is forced by his colleagues to recuse himself. We hope the Second Circuit will break with tradition and do so here. Firearm manufacturers are always going to be an attractive target for ambitious plaintiffs, pols and attorneys general. But the U.S. judicial system should at least guarantee them an impartial judge.
April 7, 2004; Page A18
Shotgun Justice
Editorial
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108130083120076288,00.html
While the tabloids were having a field day recently with the signals a juror in the Tyco trial was allegedly flashing, elsewhere in Manhattan lawyers for the firearms industry were asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to recuse a judge they say is sending his own "OK" signal to plaintiffs in a highly contentious gun case.
At the center of this storm is federal Judge Jack Weinstein, who is well known for his creative interpretations of liability laws. The case is City of New York v. Beretta, which is an effort to use the public nuisance laws to blame the gun industry for urban violence. The industry has ample reason to fear that it will never get a fair shake in Judge Weinstein's courtroom.
Let's start with the snarky way this case ended up in his court. In theory, case assignments are random. But in practice no fewer than 11 gun-litigation cases have been steered to Judge Weinstein. Plaintiffs do this by requesting their case be sent to judges hearing "related" litigation. Properly used, this has a legitimate purpose in making courts more efficient. But when it's abused -- as it is here -- it amounts to judge-shopping by the plaintiffs bar.
The original case was NAACP v. Acusport, in which the NAACP sued a large group of gun manufacturers, importers and distributors on the grounds that the industry represented a public nuisance because it allowed its firearms to fall into the hands of criminals. As the National Law Journal stated baldly, lawyers targeting the gun industry steer their cases to Judge Weinstein because they know they "might not succeed in any other courtroom in America."
The industry has good reason for suspicion. The Second Circuit had previously turned over a key gun case handled by Judge Weinstein to New York's state appeals court, which rejected the claims. While this case was working its way up the appellate ladder, the state had filed a public nuisance lawsuit against the gunmakers. This too was rejected decisively by New York courts.
But Judge Weinstein was not deterred. Last July he rightly threw out the NAACP case on the grounds that the organization had no standing to bring such a case because it had not suffered any special injury. Alas, he did not stop there. He devoted pages of his ruling to findings of "fact" that went way beyond the NAACP's allegations and laid out a road map for how another plaintiff -- hint, hint -- might get around the problem.
That's just what the City of New York did in Beretta. Judge Weinstein now proposes to handle Beretta all by himself by importing the rulings and findings of fact he put down in NAACP. Not only does this prevent the defendants from challenging any of his assertions in NAACP, it puts the judge in the position where he can finally get what he wants without the annoyance of a trial or jury. Surely it says something about his zeal that when he was asked to recuse himself, he refused even the routine process of hearing arguments.
It's rare that an unwilling judge is forced by his colleagues to recuse himself. We hope the Second Circuit will break with tradition and do so here. Firearm manufacturers are always going to be an attractive target for ambitious plaintiffs, pols and attorneys general. But the U.S. judicial system should at least guarantee them an impartial judge.
