New sentencing is required for inmate because DA-turned-justice didn't recuse, ABA brief says
The American Bar Association has filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to order a new sentencing hearing for a death row inmate because of “rare-but-egregious circumstances” involving a Pennsylvania justice’s failure to recuse.
The ABA brief supports Terrance Williams, whose sentence was upheld unanimously by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in December 2014. Williams had sought, without success, the recusal of then-Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille. A press release is here and the brief is here (PDF).
According to the ABA brief, Castille had served as the district attorney in Philadelphia during Williams’ trial and had personally approved Williams’ capital prosecution. While campaigning for a judicial seat, Castille’s ads said he was a “law-and-order guy” who had put 45 murderers on death row—a count that included Williams.
Williams’ appeal had alleged ethical misconduct by prosecutors whom Castille had supervised as district attorney, according to the brief.
The ABA brief cites provisions of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct. One provision bars judges from sitting in cases in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including cases in which they have served as a lawyer. Another requires judges to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
The brief asserts that Castille’s failure to recuse violated Williams’ due process rights. “Although due process is not violated whenever a judge violates the code,” the brief says, “these extreme circumstances violate due process and warrant a remedy.”
Though Castille’s vote was not decisive, there is still damage to public confidence in the judiciary, the brief said.
