|| News || 
 
 Page 1 of 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 A gay man was excused from jury duty in New York last week because he said that discrimination against gays makes him a second-class citizen and therefore he couldn’t be impartial. 
 
 
 
 Jonathan D. Lovitz, an actor, model, and singer who will be on Logo’s upcoming show Setup Squad, wrote on his Facebook page, “I raised my hand and said, ‘Since I can’t get married or adopt a child in the state of New York, I can’t possibly be an impartial judge of a citizen when I am considered a second class citizen in the eyes of the justice system.’” 
 
 
 
 “And he got off the case!” reported Village Voice columnist Michael Musto. “And that’s how the new phenomenon of ‘jury duty blocking’ was born.” 
 
 
 
 New York party promoter and blogger Justin Luke encourages others to use the strategy. Read more here. ||||| An appeals court delivered a stinging rebuke Thursday to Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin — unanimously booting her from cases involving stop-and-frisk, calling into question her impartiality and saying she “ran afoul” of judicial ethics. 
 
 In a ruling that put a series of NYPD reforms she mandated on hold, a three-judge panel at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals said Scheindlin violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges by failing to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities” and by failing to disqualify herself “in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 
 
 The judges faulted Scheindlin for granting a series of media interviews in May while overseeing a nonjury trial over the NYPD’s use of the tactic, which she later ruled unconstitutional. 
 
 At the time, an editorial in The Post blasted Scheindlin for making public comments “that skate so close to the issues involved.” 
 
 “From the start of this trial, she hasn’t been shy about letting the city know how dubious she is about police judgment,” it read. 
 
 In their ruling, the three judges also said “the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation was compromised” when Scheindlin invited lawyers to file suit against stop-and-frisk and steer it to her through what the appellate judges called an “improper application of the court’s ‘related-case rule’ ” in a 2007 proceeding over the NYPD’s since-disbanded Street Crime Unit. 
 
 “What I am trying to say — I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it — for $65 you can bring that lawsuit,” she said from the bench in that case according to Thursday’s ruling. 
 
 “And as I said before, I would accept it as a related case, which the plaintiff has the power to ­designate.” 
 
 The order by Judges José Cabranes and Barrington Parker — both generally regarded as liberal — and Judge John Walker Jr. also stayed a series of reforms that Scheindlin ordered to the stop-and-frisk program until after a pending appeal by the city is ­resolved. Among them is the ­appointment of a federal panel to monitor the NYPD. 
 
 Experts on judicial ethics said it was a rare move by the higher court. 
 
 “I’m shocked,” said Hofstra University law professor Monroe Freedman. “It’s not a common thing. It’s ordinarily reserved for extreme cases.” 
 
 Indiana University law professor Charles Geyh said the order could expose Scheindlin to disciplinary action, such as a censure. 
 
 “They’re citing core provisions of the Code of Conduct here,” Geyh said. “This almost seems like an invitation to do it.” 
 
 In a statement, Scheindlin wrote, “I said I would take the case [involving the Street Crime Unit] as related because the plaintiffs charged that the city had violated my order.” 
 
 She also maintained that quotes attributed to her about stop-and-frisk were actually taken from statements she made in court. 
 
 City Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo praised the ruling, saying stop-and-frisk “will now receive a fresh and independent look both by the appeals court and then, if necessary, by a different trial-court judge.” 
 
 The New York Civil Liberties Union vowed to appeal the order. 
 
 “There is overwhelming evidence that the stop-and-frisk regime is unconstitutional and out of control — just ask any black or brown New Yorker,” said executive director Donna Lieberman. 
 
 Baher Azmy of the Center for Constitutional Rights, whose lawyers helped spearhead the plaintiffs’ case, said his group remained “optimistic about genuine reform finally occurring.”
– A creative jury duty excuse made—successfully—earlier this month is making the rounds this week: Jonathan D. Lovitz, who just so happens to have a reality show in the works, got out of jury duty by explaining that he couldn't be impartial because he's a gay man living in New York. His reasoning, as first reported by the blog Justin + 1: "Since I can't get married or adopt a child in the state of New York, I can't possibly be an impartial judge of a citizen when I am considered a second-class one in the eyes of this justice system." It worked, and now Lovitz is semi-famous. (The Advocate is just one of the sites that has since picked up the story.)