|
June 21, 2005
-Today, the
Washington
Legal Foundation (WLF) filed a judicial misconduct
complaint against Alabama Circuit Judge John Rochester with the
Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission in Montgomery regarding his
receipt of $60,000 in campaign contributions during his
unsuccessful 2004 campaign for a seat on the Alabama Supreme
Court.
The Associated Press
reported on April 23, 2005 that the source of those
contributions was the Montgomery law firm of Beasley Allen,
P.C., a major trial law firm which has a product liability
lawsuit against Merck & Co. pending before Judge Rochester
regarding the pain-reliever Vioxx. The $60,000 in contributions
were apparently routed to Judge Rochester from October 7-24,
2004, through the use of 12 political action committees which
were established and controlled by the same person.
In its 22-page
complaint with a dozen exhibits, WLF alleged that Judge
Rochester violated the Alabama's Canons of Judicial Ethics for
not disqualifying himself from hearing the Merck/Vioxx case and
for other conduct related to his handling of campaign
contributions. According to the AP story, Judge Rochester
defended his receipt of the contributions, stating that the
contributions do not, in fact, influence his decisions.
However, as WLF
stated in its Complaint, Canon 3C(1) states that a judge should
disqualify himself when his impartiality "might reasonably be
questioned." WLF's complaint cites numerous Advisory Opinions by
the Judicial Inquiry Commission as well as Alabama court
decisions that reiterate that the standard for disqualification
is based on appearance of bias, regardless of whether the judge
can, in fact, remain impartial. The $60,000 in contributions
constituted approximately 11 percent of all of Judge Rochester's
contributions, and approximately 22 percent of the contributions
given to Judge Rochester during the final crucial month of the
2004 general election.
WLF alleged that
because of the large amount involved; the percentage those
contribution represent of Judge Rochester's campaign; Jere
Beasley's statement in the AP story that he has been a friend of
Judge Rochester for years and consistently supports his judicial
campaigns; and the recent denial of Merck's motion to dismiss
the Vioxx lawsuit, all clearly demonstrate that Judge
Rochester's impartiality "might reasonably be questioned," even
though Judge Rochester, in fact, may not be biased. WLF's
complaint quotes Judge Rochester's public statements effectively
acknowledging that his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned: "The way we fund and elect judges in the state is
not a good way to do business because of questions like this
coming up." (AP story). Judge Rochester was also quoted as
saying, "All this money is flying around, and people are getting
a lot of it . . . . Are you going to do [something] for the
person who's giving you money or not? I think it's a terrible
system." The Decatur Daily (Oct. 14, 2004).
WLF's Complaint
documents that 11 political action committees numerically named
(e.g. One PAC, Two PAC, Three PAC, etc.) were all established in
October 2004 and received the funds from Beasley Allen, P.C.,
and delivered to Judge Rochester through a series of
suspiciously timed contributions. For example, the complaint
notes Fourteen PAC was established on October 27, 2004, a week
before the general election. On that same day, a contribution of
$10,000 from Beasley Allen was made payable to Fourteen PAC and
deposited in Fourteen PAC's checking account, presumably opened
that same day, because Fourteen PAC then wrote a check to Judge
Rochester for $10,000. This one-day transaction left Fourteen
PAC with a zero balance.
In addition, WLF
alleged that Judge Rochester's handling of his campaign
contributions may have violated other Canons of Judicial Ethics.
For example, despite Canon 7's requirement that a judge may not
solicit campaign contributions, but may establish a committee to
solicit and receive funds, Judge Rochester designated only
himself as his principal campaign committee. During a
pre-election interview at The Decatur Daily, "Judge [Rochester]
stood up, buried his hand in his pocket and withdrew a wad of
lint, rubber bands, business cards . . . and lots of cash and
checks. `Let's see. I got this $100 bill, not sure from whom.
And this check came from, who was that, oh yes . . . .'" WLF
alleged that this haphazard way of handling campaign
contributions only reinforces the negative perception of the
funding of judicial campaigns.
"WLF calls upon Judge
Rochester to disqualify himself from the Merck/Vioxx case as
required by ethical standards and to avoid the expenditure of
resources by the Judicial Inquiry Commission," said Paul
Kamenar, WLF's Senior Executive Counsel. "Judges should not be
deciding cases where the attorneys for the parties have given
substantial campaign contributions to the judge," Kamenar added.
WLF has filed numerous misconduct complaints against other state
and federal judges over the years for conduct that raises
questions of impartiality.
In addition, WLF
filed a petition in 1995 with Alabama bar authorities requesting
that they adopt rules that limit campaign contributions to
judges from trial lawyers. In July 1995, the Alabama Legislature
passed a law requiring disqualification proceedings when a party
or attorney in a case has given $2,000 in campaign contributions
to the judge.
###
|
