Search

The article discusses a court case between Terrance Williams and the Pennsylvania state government over due process rights in relation to changing of the sentence associated with murder charges of the former on the deaths of Herbert Hamilton and Amos Norwood.

The article presents information on judicial campaigns and the spending for impartiality of judges. The conflicts in election support including personal and professional ties between witnesses and judges are focused. Expansion in the areas related to recusal of judges and the issuance of written opinion on recusal motion by a judge is discussed. The role of American Bar Association in rewriting the judicial code related to illegal spending is discussed.

The article reports on the issue of judicial ethics regarding Facebook friendship. It mentions what constitutes friendship on Facebook, ethical considerations of lawyers and judges friending each other, and whether this is grounds for recusal.

The article explores the issue of whether it is ethical for lawyers to support a judge's election campaign. According to a 2011 survey conducted by Justice at Stake, 83% of the public believe that judicial campaign contributions influence judges' decisions to some degree. Taking a Caperton case into account where 3 million U.S. dollars was given by an opposing side, most states have set their own standards for judicial disqualification.

The article discusses ethical aspects for prosecutors to recuse or report misconduct of a judge. Topics covered include fears of litigators in filing motions for disqualification of a judge, ethical requirements for lawyers to inform the judge about a recusal issue and provisions in judicial conduct code and constitutional due process rules. Also mentioned are requirements for judges to sua sponte recuse from proceedings as to impartiality questions and ethical responsibility of litigators.

The article offers information on the election of judges in the U.S. in light of the American Bar Association and the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition of the need for strict judicial disqualification standards. The author says that several U.S. states, with Tennessee being the latest, has adopted detailed recusal rules in order to make sure that campaign funds are not a factor in judicial verdicts. The article discusses the case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company.

The article focuses on the opinion of the New York State Committee on Judicial Ethics claiming that the mere status of being a Facebook friend does not require a judge to exercise recusal. The issue involving social media relationships originated from a judge inquiring whether it is necessary to recuse himself from a criminal trial where he is a Facebook friend acquainted with the parents or guardians of minors who allegedly were affected by the defendant's conduct.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including gender inequality, a summit meeting on the justice system to be hosted by voluntary professional organization Judicial Division in March 2013, and judicial disqualification.

The article presents information on the recusal of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas due to a conflict of interest in the federal health care decisions of the U.S. and fair treatment in courts. Interest groups are of the opinion that Justice Thomas must step aside due to the seeking of financial disclosure of the income of his wife by the U.S. Department of Justice. A focus is on the passing of new recusal statute by the U.S. Congress.

The article presents a report of the director of the Judicial Division (JD) of the American Bar Association, wherein he thanked Chief Justice Mark Martin for his leadership of the JD. Topics include Martin's three accomplishments during his chairmanship, such as his resolution of the issue of judicial disqualification. Also mentioned are the Committee on Collaborative Court Funding Initiative chaired by Judge Marc Amy, and the Task Force on Perceptions of Justice led by Judge Delissa Ridgway.

The author provides an update on the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Judicial Independence. She notes that the committee is considering outreach efforts with state legislatures as well as media and public relations campaigns to increase public awareness of the crisis facing state courts. She also cites other projects which include establishing "universal" standards for judicial disqualification/recusal and campaign finance for judicial elections.

The article discusses on how to deal with judicial bias involving adverse rulings. It focuses on judicial disqualification which is an act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. It cites the court case Watkins v. Smith wherein the defendants motions for sanctions are granted with respect to the plaintiffs attorneys.

The article reports on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the case Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Corp. The court discovered a probability of bias that requires the recusal of a judge who accepts campaign contributions from litigants. Penny J. White, co-chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Litigation's Task Force on the Independence of the Judiciary, believes that the decision can affect the general public.