Upload
william-bond
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
1/11
1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
v. : APPEAL NO. 09-7572
THOMAS BROMWELL, SR., et al.
:
...oooOooo...
GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO
INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR
RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGUMENT
The United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, herein opposes
the intervenor/appellants Motion for Maryland Circuit Judge(s) To Recuse
And/Or For The Chief Judge Of This Court To Specially Assign A Panel To Hear
This Appeal, and the Motion For Expedited Oral Argument And/Or For The
Opinion In This Case To Be Read From The Bench. In support of this Opposition,
the government states as follows.
INTRODUCTION
William C. Bond, the intervenor/appellant, is a pro se litigant who sought to
have certain records and proceedings unsealed in a District of Maryland criminal
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 1
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
2/11
According to Mr. Bond, the Barristers Club is a private association of1
attorneys and judges in Baltimore. See Motion for Recusal at 8.
2
case that had been closed for more than a year. The district court denied that
request. In connection with his appeal of that denial, Mr. Bond has moved for
recusal of the Maryland Judges of this Court on the ground that they cannot be
impartial due to their possible membership in the American College of Trial
Lawyers and The Barristers Club, as well as their alleged familiarity or
acquaintance with the trial judge and the defense attorneys who were involved in
the case below. Mr. Bond has also moved for expedited oral argument and for1
the opinion to be read from the bench so that he can participate in the customary
handshake at the end of the proceeding.... See Motion for Expedited Oral
Argument at p. 2, 6.
Mr. Bonds motions should be denied.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October of 2005, a Special Grand Jury returned a 30 count Superseding
Indictment, charging former Maryland State Senator Thomas Bromwell Sr., Mary
Patricia Bromwell, and W. David Stoffregen with one count of RICO conspiracy,
as well as assorted charges against the various defendants for mail and wire fraud,
Hobbs Act extortion, false statement and tax violations. Defendant Stoffregen
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 2
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
3/11
3
pleaded guilty in November of 2006, and trial of the Bromwell defendants was
scheduled for the spring of 2007. On March 16, 2007, shortly before the trial was
scheduled to begin, the trial court issued an order disqualifying and removing the
attorneys for both of the Bromwell defendants from further participation in the
case on account of irreconcilable conflicts of interest. In July of 2007, after
obtaining new counsel, both of the Bromwell defendants entered guilty pleas. The
district court sentenced the Bromwell defendants in November of 2007.
A number of pleadings were filed and hearings were held under seal during
the course of the case below. In March of 2007, the Baltimore Sun Company
moved to intervene for the purpose of obtaining access to the sealed proceedings
and pleadings. The trial court granted the motion to intervene and held a hearing
on the motion for access on March 9, 2007. The trial court issued an order on
March 16, 2007, the same day that it removed the defense attorneys from the case,
in which the court unsealed certain pleadings in their entirety, unsealed some of
the pleadings and transcripts of hearings in redacted form, and ordered that certain
other pleadings and transcripts remain under seal. The Baltimore Sun Company
did not appeal that ruling.
Two years later, on March 9, 2009, Mr. Bond filed a motion in the court
below, demanding that the trial court unseal the entire record in the case. The trial
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 3
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
4/11
4
court denied that motion and this appeal followed.
ARGUMENT
I. There Is No Basis For Recusal In This Case.
The essence of Mr. Bonds appeal in this case is that the trial judge wrongly
refused to unseal the records below in order to protect the reputations of the
disqualified defense attorneys. See Motion for Recusal at 5-6. According to
Mr. Bond, the Maryland Judges of this Court cannot be impartial in hearing his
appeal, because they are allegedly members of the same professional
organizations as some or all of the disqualified defense attorneys, they share office
space with the trial judge, and the disqualified defense attorneys have notoriety.
See Motion for Recusal at 7-8, 11. These unfounded and vague allegations are
insufficient to warrant recusal of the Maryland Judges in this case.
Title 28, United States Code, Section 455(a) provides: [A]ny justice, judge,
or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in
which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Subsection (b) of that
statute sets out five distinct additional circumstances requiring disqualification,
including circumstances where a judge has a financial interest in the outcome or
where the judges spouse or other close relative is likely to be a material witness in
the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5)(iv).
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 4
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
5/11
5
In interpreting the statute, the inquiry is whether a reasonable person
would have a reasonable basis for questioning the judges impartiality. United
States v. Glick,
946 F.2d 335, 336 (4th Cir. 1991), quoting In re Beard,
811 F.2d
818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). The test is an objective one. United States v. Cherry,
330 F.3d 658, 665 (4 Cir. 2003). A judge should not recuse himself [w]henth
there is no reasonable basis for questioning a judges impartiality. Glick,946
F.2d at 336. Recusal on the basis of a litigants unsupported, irrational, or
highly tenuous speculation is not required. United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d
279, 287 (4 Cir. 1998)(citation omitted).th
Mr. Bond has failed to identify any rational basis upon which the Maryland
Judges should recuse themselves from hearing this matter. Mr. Bond suggests
that membership in the Barristers Club creates a basis for recusal, but he does not
even identify by name the attorneys or the judges that he believes are members of
that organization. Instead, Mr. Bond merely speculates that: several of the
lawyers at issue in this case as well as several of the Maryland District Court
Judges, if not Fourth Circuit Judges are members. Motion for Recusal at 8
(emphasis added). Mr. Bond similarly does not name the judges or lawyers that he
claims are members of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Moreover, he does
not allege any facts to show how membership in either organization would create a
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 5
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
6/11
6
need for a judge to recuse himself in a case involving other members of the
organization. These vague and factually unsupported allegations of membership
in professional organizations clearly do not provide a reasonable basis for
questioning a judges impartiality within the meaning of Section 455.
Even assuming for purposes of argument that Mr. Bond had provided some
sort of definitive, factual support for his claims of associations between the
attorneys and the judges, it is well-settled that the mere fact that a judge may
belong to the same professional organization or club as one of the litigants or
attorneys on a case is not a basis for recusal. In Sierra Club v. Simkins Industries,
Inc., 847 F.2d 1109 (4th Cir. 1988), vacated on other grds. by Friends of Earth,
Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC) Inc., 149 F.3d 303 (4 Cir. 1998),th
for instance, the appellant claimed that the late Honorable Herbert R. Murray of
the District Court of Maryland should have recused himself from the case because
two years before he was appointed to the bench in 1971 he had been a member of
the Sierra Club. The Court found that the trial judges prior association did not
warrant recusal and did not call into question his impartiality. As the Court there
observed: litigants are entitled to a judge free of personal bias, but not to a judge
without any personal history before appointment to the bench. Id. at 1117.
Similarly, in Glick, Judge Wilkins found that he was not required to recuse
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 6
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
7/11
7
himself from reviewing a sentencing guideline issue on appeal even though he was
then a member of the United States Sentencing Commission which promulgated
the disputed guideline. 946 F.2d at 336-37. And in Doyle v. Arlington County
School Board, 953 F.2d 100, 102-03 (4th Cir. 1991), this Court found that the
district judge was not required to recuse himself on account of his former
association with the school board, even though the board itself was a party in the
litigation. See also Scarella v. Midwest Federal Sav. & Loan, 536 F.2d 1207, 1209
(8 Cir. 1976)(Allegations that Circuit Judges could not be impartial due toth
membership in state bar association and American Bar Association where those
organizations were defendants in a separate class action and that judges had
unique relationship with legal profession were too vague and insufficient for
purposes of recusal statute).
Likewise, a judges friendship or extra-judicial acquaintance with a party or
witness in a matter is not enough to warrant recusal. Generally, judges are not
required to recuse when they have a casual relationship with a victim, attorney,
witness, or litigant appearing before the court. Courts have recognized that
elevation to the bench does not and should not require withdrawal from society.
United States v. Sundrud, 397 F.Supp.2d 1230, 1233 (C.D. Calif. 2005). See also
Henderson v. Dept of Public Safety and Corrections, 901 F.2d 1288, 1295-96 (5 th
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 7
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
8/11
8
Cir. 1990)(sanctions proper against attorney who moved for recusal of judge based
on fact that judge was friend of opposing counsel and opposing counsels father);
United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1537 (7 Cir. 1985)(In todays legal
th
culture friendships among judges and lawyers are common. They are more than
common; they are desirable.); United States v. Kehlbeck, 766 F.Supp. 707, 712
(S.D. Ind. 1990) ([J]udges may have friends without having to recuse themselves
from every case in which a friend appears as counsel, party, or witness).
Here, Mr. Bond suggests that there is some undefined degree of familiarity
between the Maryland Judges of this Court, the trial judge, and the disqualified
defense attorneys. See Motion for Recusal at 11. The fact that a Maryland
Judge might be personally acquainted with the trial judge or the disqualified
defense attorneys, however, would not cause a reasonable person to question that
judges impartiality. Indeed, if mere knowledge or acquaintance with trial judges
and attorneys was enough to warrant recusal, appellate judges would rarely, if
ever, have the ability to hear cases arising from their own District; a plainly absurd
result.
In short, Mr. Bond has not identified any reason, other than pure
speculation, for the Maryland Judges to recuse themselves or for the Chief
Judge to appoint a special panel to hear this case. Mr. Bonds motion should be
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 8
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
9/11
9
denied.
II. There Is No Need For Expedited Oral Argument.
In his second motion, Mr. Bond asks this Court for oral argument on an
expedited basis because of the public interest and importance of this case. See
Motion at p. 2, 5. The government is not aware of any particular urgency relating
to the issues raised by Mr. Bonds appeal that would necessitate an expedited
procedure or oral argument.
While there is no dispute that the case below did generate a great deal of
public interest, the Bromwell defendants were sentenced in November of 2007 and
the case has been closed in the district court for more than a year. The district
court issued its ruling on the Baltimore Sun Companys Motion for Access to the
same sealed matters that are the subject of this appeal a full two years before Mr.
Bond commenced his action in the court below. Mr. Bond has not identified any
reason why resolution of this case would be any more important or more urgent
than any of the many other cases pending before this Court at any given time.
Finally, the government takes no position on Mr. Bonds alternative request
for the issuance of an oral opinion from the bench so that he may participate in
the customary handshake.
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 9
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
10/11
10
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests
that this Court deny the intervenor/appellants Motion for Maryland Circuit
Judge(s) to Recuse and/or For the Chief Judge of This Court to Specially Assign A
Panel to Hear This Appeal, and that it deny the Motion For Expedited Oral
Argument and/or for the Opinion in this Case to be Read From the Bench.
Respectfully submitted,
Rod J. Rosenstein
United States Attorney
By:_______/s/____________________
Kathleen O. Gavin
Assistant United States Attorney36 South Charles Street
Fourth Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 209-4800
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 10
7/27/2019 GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL AND EXPEDITED ORAL ARGU
11/11
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 28 day of September, 2009, a copy ofth
the foregoing Governments Opposition to Intervenor/Appellants Motions for
Recusal and Expedited Oral Argument was both mailed, first-class, postage
prepaid, and sent electronically to:
William C. Bond, 309 Suffolk Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21218;
and copies were sent electronically to:
Barry J. Pollack, Esquire;
Jeffrey Risberg, Esquire; and
William B. Purpura, Jr., Esquire.
_____/s/____________________
Kathleen O. Gavin
Assistant United States Attorney
Case: 09-7572 Document: 23 Date Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 11