However, prior to the hearing, Mr. Caperton mentioned for Justice Brent Benjamin to “recues himself” (excuse himself) from the case. He argued that since Massey contributed an amount of $3 million to the justice’s re-election campaign, he would not remain impartial.
Justice Benjamin’s participation would present a “constitutionally unacceptable appearance of impropriety” are the exact words of Mr. Caperton. The motion to recues was denied by a 3-2 vote in Benjamin’s favor. The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s decision and dismissed the case. After, the Court granted Mr. Caperton’s motion for a rehearing, however his motion to recues Justice Benjamin was once again denied by a 3-2 vote. Now, the question arises on whether or not Justice Benjamin failed to recues himself due to the fact that the defendant in the case donated $3 million dollars to his campaign.
According to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, he in fact did fail to recues himself. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority and was joined by Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. The majority rule stated that it did not need to find that Justice Benjamin was in fact biased in his decision-making; it just needed to show that “under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,” Justice Benjamin’s interest posed “a risk of actual bias.” This case made headlines and actually may have been a basis for many arguments defendants have made in a court of law. Findings such as these do bring up the question on whether or not a judge, or even a justice for that matter, could stay “blind” just as that law is.
All of th...
... middle of paper ...
...sometimes treated by philosophers as if it were equivalent to moral impartiality. Impartiality in its broadest sense is best understood as a formal notion, while more impartiality in particular is a substantive concept. A person who chooses an accountant on the basis of her friend’s recommendations may be entirely impartial between the various candidates. Yet if her choice is motivated solely by rational self-interested considerations then it is clear that the impartiality is in no way a form of moral impartiality.
12. Source #12: “Becoming Justice Blackmun”
The book is a biography of Justice Blackmun, who was a stern man on justice. He believed in judicial impartiality and fought for it. He wrote the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade. His activity on the Supreme Court during his tenure has a positive lasting effect. He is the model for judges and justices to come
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
Brennan (Majority Decision): Justice Brennan read the decision which stated that the ruling from the previous court was not consistent with decisions from other courts regarding the same types of cases (Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 1986).
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
be able to have an attorney at his trial despite not being able to afford one. Lewis’ explains, “Or
Facts of the Case: “The defendant Anthony Faretta was accused of grand theft in Los Angeles, CA. Prior to the trial, the defendant requested permission to represent himself” (Gardner, 2000). Mr. Faretta stated that he had once represented himself in a criminal case and that he believed that his court order attorney could not efficiently advise him due to other priorities.
If Chief Justice John Marshall had claimed that in either case of “Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia” or “Worcester vs.
In this exercise the judge was morally wrong to oversee a case if they are or has been in a relationship with either side of the legal counsel as it creates a bias in his decisions however in the case in question all the evidence can be gone over by an outside party or transfer to another judge and counsel to see if the conviction was just
With the help from F. Lee Bailey, who spent five years appealing the verdict; all the way to the Supreme Court, released Sheppard from prison granting retrial for inherently prejudicial publicity (Rompalske 20). Although Sheppard was found not guilty in 1966, his life had been des...
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
Judge Kaufman made a big point when Ethel used her Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions on the basis that she might incriminate herself. The judge said, "it is something that the jury may weigh and consider on the questioning of the truthfulness of the witness and on credibility." Not only that, but the judge allegedly would lead prosecuting witnesses to say things against defense. Defense lawyer Alexander Block tried to get a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, but was denied. Judge's bias continued throughout the trial and was expressed most clearly in his sentencing speech. The issue of punishment in this case is presented in a unique framework of history.
The Judicial Branch is the balancing factor of the Government. It is the listener of the people of the US and it decides on all matters regarding the people. It "interprets the nation's law" (World Book 141). Being able to interpret the law gives the Judicial branch a special kind of power. One of which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch do not possess. The Judicial branch decides when a law has been broken, to what extent, and how to punish the criminal act. And that is what makes it the strongest branch.
had to go through in his life in his attempts for justice to be served.
changed in terms of its power of deciding cases. It has on the other hand
One of the main factors in wrongful convictions, tunnel vision, has been recognized by psychologist as a human tendency to quickly convict a suspect so that society feels safe. Although tunnel vision is seen as a natural instinct it can convict innocent individuals and weaken the criminal justice system . Jerome Frank, a judge in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals explored the causes of wrongful convictions and noted that in 36 cases tunnel vision was a significant factor in the conviction of innocent individuals. As demonstrated, tunnel vision is a prevalent factor and may affect cases resulting in judges and juries convicting wrong suspects. However, the human tendency towards tunnel vision is a distinctive feature of an individuals psychological characteristics. Psychologist view tunnel vision as the product of cognitive biases. These natural biases explain why tunnel vision is common even amongst respected legal enforcers and honest justice systems. Although tunnel vision is a common natural tendency, it can be altered and lead to the conviction of innocent individuals.In situations when a high profile case is
American courts play an essential role in our justice system. America has a dual court