In l991, in New York City, there was an ugly episode in Brooklyn between an orthodox Jewish community and the neighboring Black community, in which a black child was accidentally hit and killed by a car driven by a Jewish man. Black youths rioted and someone killed a Jewish man in retaliation, one who had no connection to the incident. The police and the mayor were criticized for standing by and doing nothing as the streets were full of rioters for several days.

It made no sense then as it makes no sense now, and in the first trial two young black men were acquitted of the murder charges by an all black jury. More protests, marches, speeches. The case was a front page story for months. In a second trial, in l997, the two men, Lemrick Nelson and Charles Price, were accused of violating Yankel Rosenbaum's civil rights and inciting a riot, and this time they were found guilty and sentenced to serve time in prison.

The case was tried this second time in the US District Court in Brooklyn. The Federal judge, in order to quell suspicions of unfair jury selection in an area where very few whites and even fewer Jews were available to be impaneled, rearranged the jury to obtain better racial and ethnic balance by substituting a black alternate for a white, and later, a white for a black. Few people believe that this makes for a better kind of justice, but Judge David Trager was bending over backwards to secure a fair trial, for the white Jewish victim's sake as well as for the defendants'. Most important of all, what he did was done with the cooperation and approval of the defendants' attorneys. After the guilty verdict, these same attorneys sandbagged the judge by appealing the verdict, basing their appeal on the judge's handling of jury selection.

Last week,the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals predictably overturned the guilty verdict, complimenting the judge's attempt to achieve a fair trial but claiming unconstitutionality in the judge's interference in the jury selection process.

The young men have been in prison a long time; are they rehabilitated? Will they have to go through a third trial? Will the families of the victims have to testify again, have to relive their sorrowful memories? The defense lawyers who approved the judge's actions at the time sat through that whole first trial, knowing that if a guilty verdict was returned, they would appeal. What a cynical waste of our government's money. The Appeals Court decision could only have been what it was, but the humane judge, who understood what he was doing at the time of the trial, took a big risk in trusting those attorneys who later betrayed his good will and intentions. Lawyers often get a bad rap. They certainly earned one, here.