U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument in Pennsylvania Judicial Bias Case

On February 29, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Williams v. Pennsylvania, a case challenging former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille’s participation in the state’s appeal of a death penalty case involving Terry Williams (pictured), whose capital prosecution Castille personally authorized in his earlier role as Philadelphia District Attorney. A lower court judge overturned Williams’ death sentence in 2012 finding that Philadelphia prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence, including that Williams’ victim had a history of molesting boys. That evidence would would have supported Williams’ claim that he, too, had been sexually abused by the victim. That misconduct, which occured while Castille was District Attorney, was the central issue before the state Supreme Court in the state’s appeal in Williams’ case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision and reinstated Williams’ death sentence. In an amicus brief filed by the Ethics Bureau at Yale Law School, Lawrence J. Fox wrote, “Judges who wear ‘two hats’ in the same case violate the requirement of judicial impartiality. Chief Justice Castille’s conduct deeply undermined the integrity of the judicial proceedings and trampled any notion of due process for Mr. Williams.” During today’s argument, several Justices expressed concerns about Castille’s participation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Castille should have recused himself from Williams’ case because “he signed his name” on the authorization to seek the death penalty. Justice Anthony Kennedy said he did not think the passage of nearly 30 years between Williams’ trial and his appeal lessened Castille’s potential bias.

(M. Dale and M. Sherman, “Justices Weigh If DA-Turned-Judge Had Murder Case Conflict,” Associated Press, February 28, 2016; M. Sherman, “JUSTICES HEAR JUDICIAL-BIAS CLAIM IN DEATH-ROW CASE,” Associated Press, February 29, 2016.) See U.S. Supreme Court.