JUDGE HOSTILE TO WRONGLY CONVICTED CALIFORNIA MAN

As if the guy had not already had enough aggression from the "justice" system!

On the same day a federal judge declared a mistrial in a wrongful conviction civil lawsuit, an appeals court removed him from the case, ruling that his "impartiality" in handling the case might be questioned. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals acted Wednesday, the same day U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson declared a mistrial because a jury deadlocked over Herman Atkins' damages claim. "It will be in the interests of the district judge as well as the parties, and it will preserve the appearance of justice, if any future trial in this matter is conducted by another judge," an appeals panel wrote. A call to Anderson's courtroom in downtown Los Angeles was not immediately returned early Thursday.

Atkins, 40, spent 12 years in prison before DNA evidence cleared him of a 1986 rape and robbery in Riverside County. After his release, he sued the county, alleging a sheriff's detective fabricated evidence and misrepresented proof in court to secure a conviction. The DNA analysis that ultimately exonerated him was not available during his 1988 criminal trial.

Eight jurors deliberated for parts of three days after the two-week trial. They told Anderson several times they could not reach an unanimous agreement. Attorneys for both sides agreed that the judge should order more deliberations, but Anderson chose a mistrial, saying that further discussions among the jurors "may well coerce an erroneous verdict."

The result "seems particularly tragic given the fact that Herman was wrongly convicted and spent all those years in prison for something he didn't do," said Atkins' attorney, Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project at Benjamin Cardozo Law School in New York, which did the legal work that led to Atkins' exoneration and release.

Neufeld and his co-counsel Deborah Cornwall had repeatedly complained that Anderson was biased against their client. They unsuccessfully tried to get Anderson recused before the trial began, saying he had taken a hostile attitude toward them and their client in pre-trial rulings. Members of the appeals panel said their review of Anderson's rulings and the trial transcript lead them to conclude that in light of his "cumulative actions in this case, which has a long, bitter and controversial history, his impartiality might be questioned." The panel concluded that any new trial "be expedited and held at the earliest possible date."

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)