In its recent decision in Caperton v. Massey, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that an elected state court judge must recuse himself from a case involving his largest campaign donor. The decision is a victory for common sense and fundamental fairness. Unfortunately, however, it cannot help the real losers in the 39 states that elect rather than appoint judges — those accused of crimes who rely on judges to protect their rights.
Caperton illustrates the threat that judicial elections pose for criminal defendants. Don Blankenship, the chief executive officer of Massey Energy Co., spent $3 million to unseat West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Justice Warren McGraw and elect in his place Brent Benjamin, whom he believed to be more “business-friendly” than the incumbent. The U.S. Supreme Court has now declared that Benjamin should have recused himself from hearing a case involving Blankenship’s company. What does this have to do with the criminal justice system? A lot actually. Blankenship, like many savvy donors to judicial campaigns, realized that the best way to unseat McGraw would be to accuse him of being soft on crime rather than admit that his real interest was to replace McGraw with a judge who would vote in favor of Blankenship’s corporate interests.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
