In February of 2015, the mayor of the City of Akron, Ohio, accused the judge in an open interview to the press, of displaying his long-standing bias against the city during a trial - and thus affecting the jury:
"Attorneys described your demeanor as “searing judicial temperament against the City.” You continuously used inflections in your voice and negative facial expressions to portray to the jury your obvious disdain for the City as we defended against the Plaintiffs’ unwarranted claims."
Then, in November of 2015, Judge Adams refused to recuse from yet another case where he was supposed to: a criminal case where the criminal defendant told the judge that he must testify at a criminal theft case involving his girlfriend and the judge's own nephew, and that the criminal defendant in question was using heroin with the judge's brother, sometimes in the presence of his minor son, the judge's nephew, for the period of 14 months.
Here is the judge's order refusing recusal.
Here is the defendant's writ of mandamus.
After the writ of mandamus was filed, Judge Adams agreed to impose a stay on the proceedings in this court until the writ was decided, but held the defendant in pre-trial detention for several months.
When the time of pre-trial detention was about the same as the time that the defendant would have served if convicted by the guidelines, the defense counsel asked Judge Adams to turn the case over for a bond hearing.
Judge Adams immediately retaliated by removing the stay from the proceedings and scheduling a trial, over objection of defense counsel, and while the petition for mandamus was pending.
The defense counsel was forced to file with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit a motion to speed up resolution of the writ of mandamus and to force Judge Adams' recusal.
The motion was filed on May 3, 2016.
It was nearly instantly decided and granted by the 6th Circuit.
The 6th Circuit removed Judge Adams from the case on May 9, 2016.
But, the damage was already done.
The defendant already spent time in pre-trial detention - which may not have happened had another judge presided over the case.
The defendant had to go through the stress and uncertainty of the writ of mandamus and expecting to be tried by an obviously biased judge with a personal, familial, interest in the outcome of the case.
The judge's claims that he did not see his nephew for a long time and that he was "estranged" from his brother really do not mean much when there is a mandate to recuse where close relatives of a judge are involved.
But, the case clearly shows how far the grounds for the so-called "duty to sit" and to "prevent judge-shopping" for parties can be stretched.
Judge Adams assumed the position of the "reasonable objective observer" and observed himself, as having no appearance of impropriety in presiding over the case of defendant who was using drugs with the judge's brother in the presence of the judge's nephew and who was supposed to testify, possibly against the judge's nephew, in an unrelated criminal trial.
And, of course, there will be no discipline upon the judge other than removal from the case.
And that is the whole problem - the judge will not learn his lesson and he will continue to do the same thing, and more, and worse.
The judge is young (for a U.S. judge - they "serve" well into the 90s), born in 1955, so he is "just" 61 now.
I am afraid this is not the last we have heard about this judge's misconduct.
I will follow this judge's future conduct and report it on the blog.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment