High court: Judges with roles in case must recuse |

High court: Judges with roles in case must recuse

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that judges must step aside from ruling in a case if they had once played a key role in the prosecution.

The 5-3 decision sided with a death row inmate in Pennsylvania whose sentence was upheld by the state Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Ronald Castille, who decades earlier had approved seeking the death penalty in the same case.

Justice Anthony Kennedy cited the maxim that “no man can be a judge in his own case.” This rule requires a judge or justice to step aside from ruling in any case where he or she had “a significant, personal involvement” in the prosecution, he said.

The Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law “would have little substance if it did not disqualify a former prosecutor from sitting in judgment of a prosecution in which he or she had made a critical decision,” Kennedy said in Williams v. Pennsylvania.

The high court’s decision is the second in recent years to strengthen the requirement that judges step aside from deciding cases in which their impartiality might be in doubt.

Kennedy spoke for the court in 2009 in requiring an elected West Virginia Supreme Court justice to withdraw from ruling on a civil case involving a wealthy coal baron who had contributed several million dollars to support the judge’s campaign.

In the Pennsylvania case, the justices said the convicted murderer, Terrance Williams, deserves a new hearing before the state high court, without Castille.

In 1986, as a district attorney in Philadelphia, Castille authorized seeking the death penalty against Williams.

Two years ago, Castille refused to step aside when the state court considered an appeal from Williams.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.