Judge, DA Recuse From Vehicular Homicide Case Against Former Trooper
Chief Superior Court Judge John Simpson and District Attorney Herb Cranford have both recused from the criminal case against former Georgia state trooper A.J. Scott, ending a quarrel that prompted Simpson to file bar complaints and multiple contempt citations against the DA and two ADAs.
September 24, 2019 at 04:54 PM
5 minute read
A legal contretemps between a Superior Court judge and a district attorney—that prompted a mistrial in a vehicular homicide case and mutual allegations of alleged misconduct—has led both to step down from the criminal case.
John Simpson, chief judge of the Superior Court of the Coweta Circuit, issued an order on Monday recusing himself from further involvement in the case against former Georgia state trooper Anthony "A.J." Scott and asking that it be reassigned to another judge.
Simpson also filed a consent order that he jointly signed with District Attorney Herbert Cranford on Sept. 12, dismissing 12 counts of criminal contempt against the DA and assistant district attorneys Lara Myers and Matthew Swope.
On Monday, Cranford notified Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr that he, too, is stepping down from the Scott case and asked Carr to appoint a special prosecutor. The attorney general has named DeKalb County District Attorney Sherry Boston as Cranford's replacement.
Cranford said in his letter to the AG that he is recusing his office from further involvement in Scott's prosecution "out of an abundance of caution to ensure that a collateral matter does not distract from the state's duty to conduct a fair trial for the victims and the accused in pursuit of justice."
Simpson issued his recusal order after the Supreme Court of Georgia on Monday granted a request by Cranford and the two ADAs to dismiss their petition asking the high court to overturn Simpson's contempt ruling and his earlier refusal to recuse.
The decisions by Cranford and Simpson to jointly step away from any further involvement in Scott's prosecution appears to resolve a series of punitive actions taken by the judge over what he claimed were Brady violations by prosecutors prior to and during Scott's trial last May.
Scott was going 90 mph when he slammed into a carful of teenagers at night, killing two and leaving two others with severe head injuries. He was not on a call and was not using his blue lights or sirens when the teens' car turned across the highway in front of him. He was fired shortly after the 2015 crash. He was tried on two counts of second-degree vehicular homicide, two counts of committing a serious injury by vehicle, speeding, reckless driving and violating his oath of office.
The jury was deliberating but had deadlocked on several counts when Simpson granted the second of two mistrial motions filed by Scott's attorney, Mac Pilgrim. Pilgrim accused prosecutors of a Brady violation when they attempted to introduce an enhanced version of Scott's dash cam video of the crash, which had already been introduced as evidence, as a demonstrative aid during closing arguments.
Pilgrim then accused prosecutors of failing to inform the defense that shortly before the trial, another state trooper had developed a new theory of the crash. Prosecutors did turn over a new, altered version of Scott's dashcam video to his defense and played it for defense lawyers several times before the trial. But they didn't pass along the trooper's theory, which contradicted the official accident reports.
That failure prompted Simpson to order a mistrial, then launch his own criminal contempt inquiry of the alleged Brady violations. The judge also filed bar complaints against the three prosecutors and ordered Cranford to disqualify his office from any further involvement in Scott's prosecution.
When prosecutors sought Simpson's recusal—claiming the judge was in violation of the state Code of Judicial Conduct for "failing to disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality is objectively and directly questioned"—Simpson denied any bias and twice refused to step aside. He then aborted his contempt inquiry, instead citing the prosecutors for 12 counts of criminal contempt.
In addition to withdrawing the contempt citations, the judge sent a letter to the State Bar of Georgia on Sept. 12 withdrawing his complaints.
Cranford's attorney, Brian Steel of Atlanta's The Steel Law Firm, declined to comment on the decision by Simpson and the DA to remove themselves from the case.
Myers' attorney, Rudjard Hayes of Sanchez Hayes & Associates in Malone, couldn't be reached for comment. But Swope's attorney, Thomas Bever of Atlanta's Chillivis Cochran & Bever, said, "We are glad to see that the criminal contempt charges have been dismissed with prejudice. It's the right result."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn the Move: Hunton Andrews Kurth Practice Leader Named Charlotte Managing Partner
6 minute readPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
Atlanta Attorneys Rely on Google Earth, YouTube for Evidence in $6M Faulty Guardrail Settlement
Trending Stories
- 1Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 2Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 3Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 4De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 5Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250