Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse Media
June 10, 2016
In a stunning rebuke of a former chief justice of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that a judge
who had significant,
personal involvement
in a case during his previous role as a prosecutor must recuse himself when the
case comes before the bench.
Former Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ronald Castille was the
district attorney of Philadelphia in 1986. Terrance Williams was tried for the
robbery and murder of Amos Norwood. Castille, as the district attorney, was the
final word on whether his office would seek the death penalty. He authorized
seeking the death penalty and his office was successful, Williams was convicted
and sentenced to death.
After numerous tries to get his conviction overturned,
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, found that
prosecutors in Castilles
office had failed to turn over evidence to Williams lawyer, and she vacated the death sentence five
days before Williams was scheduled to be executed.
The case made its way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. At
the time, Castille was chief justice. Williams moved to have Castille recuse
himself from the case. The case dealt with a misconduct charge against his
office; Castille as the district attorney had the sole authority to seek the
death penalty against Williams; and he boasted as a candidate for the Supreme
Court that he had sent 45 people to death row as district attorney, including
Williams.
Castille refused to recuse himself and ultimately joined the
opinion that reversed Sarminas
decision.
Castille even wrote separately to make clear what he thought
of the lower courts
ruling. In an opinion laced with withering criticism, Castille suggested
Sarminas court had
become unmoored
from its lawful duty
and accused Williams
lawyers of sidestepping procedural rules and pursuing an obstructionist anti-death penalty
agenda.
A defiant Castille told The Associated Press before the U.S.
Supreme Court argument, In
Pennsylvania, we leave it up to the judges personal conscience ... Ive always been confident that I can be fair and
impartial.
The U.S Supreme Court did not agree.
The Court made clear in a 1975 decision that recusal is required when
the likelihood of bias on the part of the judge is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.
Williams argued that Castilles actions violated the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment by acting as both accuser and judge in his case. The Court
was left with this fundamental question
was Castilles
authorization to seek the death penalty against Williams significant, personal
involvement in a critical trial decision?
The Court concluded that it was and Castilles failure to recuse
himself from Williamss
case presented an unconstitutional risk of bias.
Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 5-3 majority, ruled This risk so endangered
the appearance of neutrality that his participation in the case must be forbidden if the
guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.
Castille remains defiant. After the high courts ruling, Castille said
the decision was an overreaction and would have wide-ranging effects throughout
the country.
Any
county judge who had something to do with a murder case where they didnt try it, but merely
were administrators, those cases could all be in jeopardy by the lack of
analysis by the Supreme Court,
Castille told The Legal Intelligencer. I
think its
extremely short-sighted by the court.
Castilles
prediction of an onslaught of challenges to prior convictions as a result of
the courts
decision may well be overstated. As Justice Kennedy pointed out Pennsylvania,
as most states, has a Code of Judicial Conduct that deals specifically with
recusal, The fact
that most jurisdictions have these rules in place suggests that todays decision will not
occasion a significant change in recusal practice.
However, this case is a pointed reminder that sometimes
those rules can be inadvertently violated or intentionally ignored.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George
P.C. His book, The
Executioners Toll,
2010, was recently
released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at mattmangino.com and
follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
To visit the column CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment