Tom DeLay and Dick DeGuerin have their victory, and in the end it may well be enough to get DeLay off; who knows? That still remains to be seen. What I’m more concerned about at this point in time is the very disturbing precedent that the recusal of Judge Robert Perkins sets.
If an attorney can argue that a judge should be recused because he or she at some point in their lives donated to a political party or cause, we could well be headed down a slippery slope. How long will it be before we see other similar arguments made? Let’s say that we have a product liability case brought against Ford. Can an attorney argue for the recusal of the presiding judge because he drives a Chevrolet? Of course, this is a patently silly, nay, absurd argument, but it and many others like it may be coming. And there is now precedent that can be used to support this argument.
Anyone else want to bet that “judge shopping” will now become an established fact in Texas? And can you imagine the potential that this has for tying our judicial system in knots as attorneys wrangle to find a judge that is ideologically acceptable to both sides?
A DEMOCRATIC judge has removed veteran state District Judge Bob Perkins, also a Democrat, from the criminal case against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay. The decision cannot help but complicate the political lives of all Texas jurists.
Perkins was recused not because of his court conduct, but because his contributions to Democratic candidates and causes might cause the public to perceive him as biased against a highly partisan Republican defendant.
The concern about impartiality is justified. In 1994 the judge recused himself from the unsuccessful prosecution of U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for misuse of office, because he had contributed $300 to her Democratic opponent, Bob Krueger. The charges had been brought by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, the same Democratic prosecutor who secured grand jury indictments against DeLay and two associates this year, charging violations of Texas campaign laws. DeLay’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, persuaded retired judge C.W. Duncan Jr. that more than $5,000 in contributions by Perkins to such groups as the Democratic National Committee and MoveOn.org would create the appearance of bias for reasonable observers.
Perkins is not alone among judges in making private contributions to parties and candidates. Most judicial hopefuls and incumbents run in partisan primaries in order to get on the ballot and often are squeezed for contributions to their parties in the general elections….
If partisan contributions by judges pose conflicts of interest, what about the large contributions made to judges by lawyers who have cases before the court? The acceptance of campaign cash from attorneys is as potentially compromising to a judge’s fairness as a judge’s private political contributions.
Indeed, where should we, or CAN we, draw the line? Once we begin heading down this slippery slope, what is there to stop attorneys from using this precedent in all sorts of ways that we cannot as yet even anticipate? Clearly, Dick DeGuerin plans to convince the public and the jury that Ronnie Earle’s case against his client is nothing but a political show trial. It’s going to be much easier for DeGuerin to prove his case if he can put an ideologically reliable (i.e., Republican) judge in Judge Perkins’ chair.
Yes, when this precedent comes back on us to be used in all sorts of ways, we can and should be blaming Dick DeGuerin for making a mockery of the presumption of judicial impartiality. Judge shopping is now established precedent. Don’t come back and whine about not having been warned….
