SCOTUS justices weigh constitutional rule for judicial recusals
U.S. Supreme Court justices raised questions about line drawing during oral arguments on Monday in a case considering a death-row inmate’s constitutional rights and a Pennsylvania justice’s refusal to recuse himself.
The justices appeared cautious about fashioning a constitutional rule that would have a broad reach, report the National Law Journal (sub. req.), the Washington Post and the New York Times. But the Associated Press coverage indicates the Supreme Court appeared likely to rule for the inmate challenging his sentence.
The now retired Pennsylvania justice, Ronald Castille, was the district attorney when he approved the capital prosecution of Terrance Williams for beating a church deacon to death with a tire iron. Castille did not recuse himself when the case came before him as the state’s chief justice and wrote a unanimous opinion reinstating Williams’ death sentence.
Williams’ appeal had alleged prosecutors whom Castille had supervised as district attorney had failed to turn over evidence that the deacon had been molesting boys. Williams claims the deacon had sexually abused him.
Castille has said he wasn’t involved in the Williams case when he was DA except as leader of the office.
Some justices expressed the need for caution. “It’s really not enough to just say what happened here was bad,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “How far does this go? . . . That’s what I’m interested in.”
Justice Stephen G. Breyer offered a similar comment. “There are disqualification rules all over the law, and suddenly to turn this into a constitutional matter, … we don’t know what we’re getting into,” he said.
Related articles:
ABAJournal.com: “New sentencing is required for inmate because DA-turned-justice didn’t recuse, ABA brief says”
ABAJournal.com: “Inmate’s claim that Pennsylvania’s top justice should have recused himself gets SCOTUS review”
