United States Supreme Court
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal, et al.
06/08/09 : Cite No. 08-22 : Disqualification of Judges
Issue
In denying a recusal motion directed at him, did a judge who had previously received generous campaign contributions linked directly to the board chair and principal officers of the corporation in the case before him violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
Yes. It is unconstitutional for a state supreme court justice to sit on a case involving the financial interests of a major donor to that judge’s election campaign.
Read opinion.
Commentary
The majority opinion took great pains to point out that this was an "extreme case," so it is not clear whether we will see many other such recusal motions supported on due process grounds. This is certainly an "extreme case." In addition to contributing the $1,000 statutory maximum to the judicial candidate’s campaign committee, the corporate officer donated almost $2.5 million to a political organization that opposed the candidate’s opponent and supported the candidate. The corporate officer’s donations accounted for more than two-thirds of the total funds that the political organization raised. The corporate officer also spent just over $500,000 on independent expenditures to support the judicial candidate. The corporate officer’s $3 million in contributions were more than the total amount spent by all other of the judicial candidate’s supporters and three times the amount spent by the judicial candidate’s own committee. The judicial candidate that the corporate officer supported won, receiving 53% of the vote against the opponent, who was the incumbent.
Texas Courts of Appeals
Mason v. State – 7th COA
06/04/09 : Cite No. 07-07-0383-CR : Improper Grand Jury Proceedings
Issue
During the defendant’s trial for capital murder, did the trial court incorrectly deny the defendant’s pre-trial motion to quash the indictment after the State conceded that the indictment was obtained in a grand jury proceeding that violated Code of Criminal Procedure art. 20.011 and 20.04?
Holding
Yes. The presence of two law enforcement officers who questioned witnesses in the grand jury room was clearly improper. The officers questioned a witness regarding evidentiary details, asked leading and suggestive questions, attempted to rehabilitate the witness, and bolstered the witness’s testimony. While the State acknowledged its mistake, it still tried to persuade the trial court to deny the motion to quash, which was the ultimate result. The case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Read opinion.
Commentary
Pay very close attention to this case. The harm analysis employed by the court of appeals may encourage other courts to examine other errors that happen during the grand jury process to determine if the error had any effect upon the indictment that was ultimately returned. I am hoping that the Court of Criminal Appeals decides to review this case, so that we can get a definitive decision on how to treat an error that occurs during the grand jury process.
Texas Attorney General Opinion Requests
Opinion Request from the Potter County Attorney
05/22/09 : Cite No. RQ-0800-GA : Transfer of County Funds
Issue
May a county auditor require prior approval of a transfer of county funds from one account in the county depository to another or from one investment to another?
Read request.
Opinion Request from the Grimes County Auditor
05/26/09 : Cite No. RQ-0802-GA : Parks and Wildlife Offense Fine
Issue
Despite Parks and Wildlife Code §12.107 (Remission of Fines), is a county allowed to impose a special expense (without a fine) on a defendant and then retain 100 percent of any special expense imposed under Code of Criminal Procedure art. 45.051 for a violation of the Parks and Wildlife Code?
Read request.
TDCAA is pleased to offer our members unique case summaries from the U.S. Supreme Court, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas Courts of Appeals and the Texas Attorney General. In addition to the basic summaries, each case will have a link to the full text opinion and will offer exclusive prosecutor commentary explaining how the case may impact you as a prosecutor. The case summaries are for the benefit of prosecutors, their staff members, and members of the law enforcement community. These summaries are NOT a source of legal advice for citizens. The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure, dissemination of or reliance upon this communication by persons other than the intended recipient may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please email comments, problems, or questions to [email protected]. In addition, if you would like to discuss the summaries with fellow prosecutors, look for the thread in our criminal forum.