Judge Under Investigation Should Have Recused Himself From Trial

A trial judge that was under a bribery investigation by the same district attorney’s office that was prosecuting a defendant in his court should have recused himself from the trial

Rippo v. Baker, U.S., No. 16-6316, 3/6/17.

The United States Supreme Court held that due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a judge recuse himself while under criminal investigation by the same prosecuting office as a defendant in his court. Before trial, the defendant moved to have the judge recuse himself because of the possibility the judge would not be impartial in adjudicating the criminal proceedings. The motion was denied and the defendant sentenced to death. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, finding that the Due Process Clause may sometimes demand recusal even when a judge “has no actual bias.” In their opinion, the court found that “Recusal is required when….the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-6316_32h6.pdf

Without Recusal, State Judge Violated Due Process

After authorizing prosecutors to seek the death penalty as a former district attorney, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice should have recused himself to avoid violating the due process rights of the convict

Williams v. Pennsylvania, 2016 BL 184130, U.S., No. 15-5040, 6/9/16.

    The Supreme Court found that a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice should have recused himself in hearing a habeas corpus petition by a convict on death row. The conflict of interest arose because the justice was a former District Attorney that authorized prosecutors to seek the death penalty against this same convict almost 30 years ago.

   The court in making this decision found that the justice’s participation violated the “due process maxim” that “no man can be a judge in his own case.” The state argued that the justice, as a district attorney, only participated in the case as an administrator, but the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument. They found that during his candidacy for the state supreme court he used the convict and other death penalty sentences to support his platform, thereby taking responsibility for the conviction and sentence.

   In the dissent, Chief Justice Roberts argued that due process is only violated “when a judge adjudicates the same question—based on the same facts—that he had already considered as a grand juror in the same case.” He agreed that the Pennsylvania justice should have recused himself, but not due to a constitutional concern, but rather a concern of the states in setting forth its own judicial procedures.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Williams_v_Pennsylvania_No_155040_US_June_09_2016_Court_Opinion?1466019882