mr. morgenthau has been the district attorney of new york county since 1975 and is the longest serving incumbent of that position during his nine terms in office. this that has conducted 3.5 million criminal prosecutions and homicides in manhattan and has been-- and hess rated in 90% success, morgenthau sir the borgen naval the stories gruwell 42. in is a real pleasure to have you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity of testifying today and i'm pleased to join those who endorse the nomination of judge sotomayor, to the united states supreme court. i first came to know judge sotomayor while i was on a recruiting trip with the yale law school. it that time grannis was the general counsel. i asked to speak with them and

mr. morgenthau, it's just an honor to meet you.n i was district attorney i hired a number of attorneys that learned everything from you in your office. thank you for that. and when i did my open the, i talked about a quote you gave once about how you hired people and you say we want people with good judgment because a lot of the job of a prosecutor is making decisions. you said i also want to see some signs of humility in anybody that i hire. we're giving young lawyers a lot of power and we want to make sure that they're going to use that power with good sense and without arrogance. could you talk about those two qualities, the good judgment and the humility and how you think those qualities may or may not be reflected in our nominee? >> i think she met all the standards. i interviewed her and talked to her. i thought she was a hard worker. i thought she would relate to victims and witnesses. i thought she had humility. i thought she was fair. i thought she'd apply the law. she met all of those standards that i thought were importa

mr. morgenthau was, we did what the law required within the bounds of understanding that our job was not to play to the home crowd, not to look for public approval, but to look at each case, in some respects like a judge does, individually. that meant in some cases, bringing the top charge, and i was actually known in my office for doing that often. but that's because i determined it was appropriate often. but periodically, i would look at the quality of evidence and say, there's just not enough. i had one case with a individual who was charged with committing a larceny from a woman. and his defense attorney came to me and said, i never, ever do this, but this kid is innocent. please look at his background. he's a kid with a disability. talk to his teachers. look at his life. look at his record. here it is. he gave me the file. everything he said was absolutely true. this was a kid with not a blemish in his life. and he said, please look at this case more closely. and i went and talked to the victim. and she -- i had not spoken to her when the case was indicted. this was -- this was one

mr. morgenthau, when you were alerted about her skills in law school, did they tell you that they had anpportunity here for you to hire a wise latina lawyer? is that what you were in the market for? >> absolutely not. i mean, i took one look at her resume-- summa cum laude at princeton, "yale law journal", and i said... and then i talked to her, and i thought she was commonsense and judgment and willingness to work. the fact that she was latino or latina had absolutely nothing to do with it. >> reporter: with sotomayor's testimony now finished, a senate vote on her nomination could very well come before members leave for the congressional recess on august 7. >> lehrer: judy woodruff, who anchored our live coverage of the hearing, takes the story from there. >> woodruff: to assess judge sotomayor's four days of testimony and her prospects for confirmation, i'm joined by marcia coyle of the "national law journal". she has been with me all week to provide analysis of the hearings for our pbs special coverage. and tom goldstein-- he's a supreme court advocate and founder of scotusblog.com. s

mr. morgenthau said it out as an example of the kind of lawyer you are. i find it compelling. can understand how you are feeling, but it applied the wall and the fine -- defined it. he told me once that ultimately led completely, a lot is what controls, and i was struck by that. in the firefighter kids, you and two other judges were assigned and of -- an appeal involving new haven firefighters and the decision to discard the result of a paper and pencil test to measure leadership abilities. the legal issue was not a new one. it was a unanimous supreme court decision, as well, conditions in 1991. congress had to reinforce their understanding of wall -- the law, for everyone in the senate. you had a binding precedent, you and two other does came to a unanimous decision that defer to the district court ruling allowing the determination that could not justify that paper and pencil test under civil rights law, and you said it was setting judicial precedent. the majority of the second circuit revolted not to not revisit the decision and therefore upheld the decision. so you have sup

mr. morgenthau singled them out as an example of the kind of lawyer you are. and i find it compelling your story about being -- i've stood at homes at 3:00 in the morning as they carry bodies out from a murder. i can understand how your feeling. but in applying the law, and applying the facts, you told me once that ultimately and completely the law is what controls. and i was struck by that when you did. and so, there's been a great deal of talk about ricci case, ricci v. destefano. you and to other judges were assigned involving firefighters in new haven and the plaintiffs were challenging the city's decision to voluntarily discard the result of a paper and pencil test to measure leadership abilities and now the new one. number in your circuit. in fact it was a unanimous decades-old supreme court decision as well. in addition, in 1991 congress acted to reinforce that law. i might note every republican member of this committee still serving in the senate support that statement of the law. so you have a binding precedent. you and to other judges came to a unani

mr. morgenthau. he gave me a privilege and honor in working in his office that has shaped my life.when i say i became a lawyer in his office, it's because in a small school -- wall schools teach you on a hypothetical is. they set forth facts for you. they give you a little bit of teaching on how those facts are developed, but not a whole lot and then they ask you to apply and about legal theory in the legal theory to the facts before you. well, when he worked in a prosecutor's office, you understand that the law isn't legal theory. it's fact. it's what witnesses say and don't say. it's how you develop your position in the record. and then it's taking those facts and making arguments based on the law as it exists. that's what i took with me as a trial judge. it's what i take with me as an appellate judge. as respect that each case gets decided, case by case, applying the law as it exists to the facts before you. you asked me a second question about the tarzan murder case. and that case brought to life for me in a way that perhaps no other case had done before the tragic consequences

mr. morgenthau was, we did what the law required within the bounds of understanding that our job was not to play to the home crowd, not to look for public approval, but to look at each case in some respects like the judge does, individually. that meant in some cases bringing the top charge and i was actually known in my office for doing that often, but that is because i determined it was appropriate often. periodically i would look to the quality of the evidence and say this is just not enough. i had one case with an individual who was charged with committing a larceny from a woman, and his defense attorney came to me and said, i never ever do this, but this kid is innocent. please look at his background. he is a kid with a disability. talk to his teachers, look at his life, but it is record. here it is. everything you said was absolutely true. this was a kid with not a blemish in his life. he said come up please look at this case more closely. and i went and talked to the victim, and i had not spoken to her when the case was indicted. this was one of those cases that was transferred to

mr. morgenthau, thank you very much. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> c-span also talked with susan sturm a longtime friend of judge sotomayor who attended jill university law school with a supreme court nominee. this is about 20 minutes. >> professor susan sturm. when did you first meet judge sotomayor? >> i met her in law school during my first year of law school. >> and this is ideal. >> yes. in 1976. >> what were the circumstances? >> we were friends with a common friend and her small-group. and we met at a social occasion, a group of law students who were getting acclimated to a new situation. >> what did you have in common? >> we shared an interest, i would say most important we shared an interest in social justice. we both came to law school to advance that set of personal goals. and immediately discovered that that was a common bond. we also really enjoyed trying to figure out what actually was going on in the world, this world of the yale law school. so we enjoyed trying to analyze the culture that we were in. >> what was going on at yale law school at the time? >> well, it was b