Public curiosity isn’t enough to justify expense, time of a trial

THE IDEA of a trial in this case is certainly intriguing. But even if Judge (Nan) Nash reconsiders her ruling or an appellate court reverses it, a newspaper’s curiosity about what happened, or even the public’s, is not an adequate reason to take a case to trial. There are strong public policy reasons to settle cases. Those include finality, certainty, judicial economy, management of risk, and peace of mind — and those benefits cut both ways. The people making those decisions on behalf of the city and the family do so acting as stewards of their respective resources, and within a framework that actively encourages the parties to settle, and enhances the risk for those who don’t.

Please note that the federal courts have long been openly critical in written opinions of the former city policy of taking every police misconduct case to trial. Those decisions created extraordinary risk and expense for the city and delayed the ultimate administration of justice to the aggrieved. Public curiosity can’t be allowed to outweigh the judgment of those who are intimately familiar with the details and the risks involved . ...