"The Robing Room: NY State Judges

Hon. Betty Owen Stinson	See Rating Details
Supreme Court (Civil)
Bronx County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 3.8 - 5 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: - 0 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

Confirm E-mail Address

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness		(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality		(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

Please type what you see below:

What others have said about Hon. Betty Owen Stinson

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY12626
Rating:2.3

Comments:
I have not had a case before Judge Betty Owen Stinson in several years (I believe she might no longer be on the bench, thankfully), but memories of her bias compel me to visit this page and share my experience.

I had a trial involving a motor vehicle pedestrian fatality involving a commercial auto policy. Defense counsel moved for summary judgment after jury selection but before trial, and Judge Stinson asked defense and I to prepare memoranda of law on the issue in the morning, and promised that whoever's memorandum shows "the grass is green" will prevail. I prepared a trial memorandum of law with appellate cases completely on point, while defense counsel came with no memorandum or cases to cite. Yet Judge Stinson STILL granted defense's application to dismiss. Furthermore, she not-so-coincidentally had an ex parte conversation with defense counsel after I left the day prior.

Completely defense biased, does not want to be bothered trying cases, and arguably (or not-so arguably) unethical. Woe to the plaintiff attorney who has to try a case before her; he or she is all but guaranteed to have to win before a new judge after appeal.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NY7148
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Criminal Defense Lawyer
Comment #: NY7142
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Comment #: NY7137
Rating:1.0
Comments:
In a civil case the burden of proof is by a preponderence of the evidence, while in a criminal case the state's persuasion burden is met only by proof beyond a reasonable doubt 397 U.S. 358, 361. Lugubriously enough in Justice Owen-Stinson cases; weither it be a civil or criminal case, there is no acquiescence of evidence from the defense unless Justice Owen-Stinson is working in their behalf. Justice Owen-Stinson makes her rulings prior to trial with the Plaintiff or Defendant (whomever SHE represents). [Redacted by Editor] Furthermore, he has no Courtroom etiquette.

Following this forum I noticed negative rating's on Justice Owen-Stinson often get deleted such as a case against the NYPD in criminal court before Justice Owen-Stinson. That is no surprise; evidence also disappears in Justice Owen-Stinson cases or not allowed. Due process is OBSOLETE in Justice Owen-Stinson cases, replaced with sham hearings for the Party she is working with PRIOR to a trial. Justice Owen-Stinson should be disbarred and removed from the bench.

**REPOSTING MY COMMENT FOR THE THIRD TIME; THAT WAS DELETED**

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY6549
Rating:2.0

Comments:
Justice Owen-Stinson is uninterested in the law and would prefer not to be bothered with a discussion of precedent or statute. Despite myriad citation to binding law on the issue before her, the Judge was uninterested in following the same. Was disrespectful to the moving counsel, rolling her eyes and making dismissive and disruptive gestures and noises while argument was ongoing. Shocked when attorney called her on it. Plainly biased pro defense and plainly unconcerned with following the law. Terrible judicial temperament.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: NY5615
Rating:9.9

Comments:
Great and learned judge.