On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Judge’s Facebook friendship created serious risk of actual bias in custody case
Miller v. Carroll, 2020 WI 56, 6/16/20, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 2017AP2132, case activity (including briefs)
You’ve surely read about this case in NY Times, the Journal Sentinel, on Wisbar.org or on On Point here or here. A judge’s Facebook friendship with one of the litigants in a child custody case before him created a serious risk of actual bias and resulted in a due process violation. Justice A.W. Bradley filed an interesting concurrence arguing that this decision is at odds with State v. Henley, 2011 WI 67, 338 Wis. 2d 610, 802 N.W.2d 175, which readers may recall, concerned a motion to disqualify then Justice Roggensack.
Federal judge’s ex parte emails with prosecutor’s office created appearance of bias
United States v. James Atwood, No. 18-2113 (7th Cir. Oct. 24, 2019)
Atwood is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the judge in his case was communicating ex parte with the prosecutor’s office about other cases, and the content of the correspondence invited doubt about the judge’s impartiality in proceedings involving the prosecutor’s office.
SCOW to review whether judge “friending” a litigant on Facebook created the appearance of bias
Timothy W. Miller v. Angela L. Carroll, petition to review a published court of appeals decision granted 8/14/19; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (based on Carroll’s Petition for Review)
- Does a judge’s acceptance of one party’s Facebook “friend” request by itself overcome the presumption that a judge is fair, impartial, and capable of ignoring any biasing influences, given the absence of any allegation of subjective bias or of facts showing the judge treated the other party unfairly, and when there were no electronic social media (“ESM”) communications between the judge and the party regarding the merits of the case?
- Does the fact a party “liked” a judge’s Facebook posts unrelated to the pending litigation or commented on a Facebook post unrelated to the pending litigation constitute an ex parte communication between a party and a judge?
Judge disciplined for ex parte communications, independent factual research, bias
In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Piontek, 2019 WI 51, 5/21/19; case activity
The supreme court suspends Judge Michael Piontek from office for five days for “obviously unethical” and “clearly improper” misconduct in two criminal cases.
Evidence sufficient; judge’s ex parte communication harmless
State v. Jeffrey S. Decker, 2015AP1997-CR, District 2, 5/4/2016 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Jeffrey Decker had been banned from the UW-Oshkosh, and was arrested when he arrived at a grand opening event. The arrest was not without incident and he was charged with obstructing an officer and convicted after a jury trial.
Trial court’s post-verdict meeting with jurors wasn’t error; its exclusion of defendant’s medical records was error, but it was harmless
State v. Wade M. Richey, 2014AP1758-CR, District 3, 3/17/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In this prosecution for reckless driving causing great bodily harm and homicide by operating with a detectable amount of a controlled substance, the circuit court erroneously excluded Richey’s medical records from evidence at trial, though the error was harmless. More interesting, perhaps, is the issue arising out of the trial court’s post-verdict meeting with the jury. While it wasn’t plain error for the trial judge to meet with the jury after receiving its verdict, what happened in this case causes the court of appeals to suggest trial judges tread carefully when doing so.