admin
A New York Post review published this week alleges a worrying pattern: Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge Janice Robinson has repeatedly set little or no bail in violent cases that prosecutors wanted held or kept on strong bond. That is not a small thing. When judges treat violent charges like traffic tickets, the public pays the price.
The Post review: low bail in serious cases
The Post counted about a dozen cases where prosecutors asked for much higher bail or for defendants to be held, but Judge Robinson set either no bail or very low amounts. One of the cases named is the Nayshawn Wilkinson matter, where prosecutors sought remand and the record shows a $5,000 bail was set instead. Law-enforcement sources told the Post they were alarmed. The state Office of Court Administration did not answer the Post’s requests for comment. These are the kind of facts that should trigger a full, public look at a judge’s record — not a shrug.
How a Civil Court judge ends up on the criminal bench
Politics, appointments and the gaps they create
Here’s the problem: Civil Court judges are elected, and those judges can be assigned to criminal dockets without the same mayoral vetting that a direct criminal-court appointment would receive. Janice Robinson was elected to the Civil Court in 2024 and was rated “not approved” by the New York City Bar Association. Yet she is now deciding whether accused violent criminals go home from arraignment. That seam between election and assignment creates a backdoor where poor vetting and political ties — she has a family link to Nick Perry, the former U.S. Ambassador to Jamaica — can matter more than courtroom experience and public safety.
Accountability matters more than intentions
City Hall and the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary, led by Ali Najmi, say they want a bench that reflects the city. Fine. But diversity of background is not the same as a shortage of standards. If judges repeatedly set negligible bail in violent cases, the Unified Court System and the mayor’s MACJ should publish the numbers, explain the assignments, and, if needed, reorder dockets. The question is simple: are bail decisions protecting the public, or are they part of a political game that puts ideology and patronage ahead of safety?
Fixes we should demand now
The Post’s review should be a wake-up call. Release the judge-level bail data. Require transparent vetting for any judge assigned to criminal court. Give the District Attorney and the court system a fast way to flag unusual patterns for administrative review. And stop pretending that political insiders alone should decide who controls our criminal dockets. If New Yorkers want safe streets, they must insist on judges who put public safety first — not judges who treat violent charges like paperwork to be shuffled through a patronage mill.
