Don Siegelman and the Plague of Judicial Bias

[babylonsister]

Don Siegelman and the Plague of Judicial Bias


The prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is perhaps the best known example of a criminal case that was infected with apparent judicial bias.

But two recent news reports, originating from West Virginia and Georgia, shine an unusually bright spotlight on the problem of compromised judges. And veteran journalist/attorney Andrew Kreig has used those reports to help produce a compelling overview piece, showing that judicial bias is a pervasive problem that is difficult to combat--even for parties of power and means.

Kreig shows that judicial bias should be of concern to all Americans. But he focuses heavily on Alabama and U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Siegelman case. Kreig cites six cases where Fuller's impartiality could reasonably be questioned, but the judge has shown a consistent determination to fight efforts to remove him from such cases. This, Kreig reports, runs contrary to statements Fuller made during his confirmation hearings in 2002:

The track record of Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller of Montgomery, Alabama, shows that he continues to supervise cases compromised by his personal, financial or political interests despite his promise at his 2002 confirmation hearing to recuse himself from any conflicts.

Fuller is not alone in playing fast and loose with the rules governing judicial recusal. Those rules are designed to protect parties from judges who might be biased against them. But judicial behavior, Kreig reports, usually is overseen by other judges. And that means there is little most parties can do about a biased judge who is determined to stay on a case.

In theory, Kreig writes, the standards for recusal are straightforward, written with regular folks in mind:

The right to an impartial judge is worth understanding because so many of us are likely to be in court one day, or at least to care about a friend or family member's civil or criminal case. The federal legal standard requiring recusal centers on whether an ordinary informed person might think a judge's impartiality might be questioned.

In reality, judges can manipulate that standard to serve their own purposes. How easily can that happen? Consider last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. Massey. In Caperton, a West Virginia executive spent $3 million to help elect a state supreme-court justice who wound up hearing a case involving the executive's company. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the justice should have recused himself, and that his failure to do so violated basic concepts of due process.

more...

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/06/don-siegelman-and-plague-of-judicial.html

[doodadem]

1. There are no unbiased judges.

We've had experience with 6 different judges in the last five years. None of them could be bothered to give more than a cursory glance at documentation, make snap decisions, and then don't try to confuse them with the facts. They could really care less about how their laziness and disinterest affect your life.