So Much for the Liberal Judiciary in Liberal New York

These guys are, at least in this case, whacko enough to be Supreme Court justices. First the choice bits, then the explanation.

After two separate Bronx juries awarded a man more than $50 million for the confrontation with an off-duty police officer that left the man paralyzed from the waist down, an appellate panel has thrown out the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

The underlying incident took place in August 1988, when off-duty policeman Franz Jerome shot plaintiff Darryl Barnes, piercing his spine.

Ten years later, a Bronx panel awarded Mr. Barnes $76 million. A judge later reduced that award to $9 million, before the Appellate Division, First Department, vacated the verdict and ordered a new trial.

In 2003, a second jury awarded Mr. Barnes $51 million, which was again reduced by the trial court, this time to just under $10 million.

Yesterday, the First Department again vacated the award. This time, however, instead of remanding the case for another trial, the appellate court dismissed the complaint.

The controlling issue was Mr. Barnes' attorney's decision to read his client's testimony from a prior hearing rather than producing his client to testify at the second trial.

"By avoiding his obligation to testify at a trial in which he was seeking millions of dollars, plaintiff was able to frustrate the City's fundamental common-law right to cross-examine a witness," Justice Joseph P. Sullivan (See Profile) wrote for the unanimous panel in Barnes v. City of New York, 9969.

"That the trial court contributed to plaintiff's shortfall in proof by erroneously allowing his counsel to read his 50-h hearing testimony does not justify a remand for a new trial. It was counsel's choice, deliberate and calculated, to withhold his client from the rigors of cross-examination - an understandable strategy, given plaintiff's unsavory background and conviction of attempted assault in the first degree for his actions in the very incident in question."

Link.

This 50-h hearing where the City is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the claimant... is conducted by a City-retained attorney. So the responsibility for failing to question properly is... the City's, not the claimnt.

But reflecting our times, these guys needed to rationalize making the decision they wanted to make -- no reward for a scumbag -- like the admittedly illegal decision in 2000 appointing Our Beloved Leader POTUS because five Supremes wanted him appointed, not the guy who was elected.