Court Roundup

Wisconsin Justice's recusal requests could end ethics case MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Ethics violation accusations against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser stemming from an argument with a fellow justice may not move forward if his colleagues agree to recuse themselves from the case. The state Judicial Commission has accused Prosser of violating the judicial ethics code when he placed his hands on rival Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's neck during an argument last year in front of four other justices. State law calls for a panel of appeals court judges to make a recommendation on discipline to the Supreme Court. Prosser has asked three justices -- Pat Roggensack, Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson -- to step out of the case because they were witnesses. He also has accused Bradley and Abrahamson of being biased against him. If the three agree to recuse themselves, the case would likely end before the panel of appeals court judges convenes. The Journal Sentinel says Prosser plans to ask other justices to step aside as well. So, even if an appeals panel is convened and four or more justices recuse themselves, the high court will not be able to make a decision on Prosser's conduct or possible discipline because of a lack of quorum. Prosser, a former Republican state Assembly speaker, is part of a four-justice conservative majority. The group has been openly feuding with the liberal-leaning Bradley and Abrahamson for years. Tensions between the group blew up last June when the court was asked to decide whether Republicans violated the state's open meetings law during the run-up to passing Gov. Scott Walker's contentious collective bargaining law, which stripped public workers of their union rights. The conservative bloc upheld the law and was under intense pressure to release the decision quickly to save Republican legislators from having to pass the law again in the state budget. The group marched into Bradley's office, found Abrahamson there and began to press her to release the opinion. When Bradley told Prosser to get out, things got physical. She says he placed his hands around her neck in a chokehold but never applied pressure. Prosser insists Bradley charged him and he raised his hands in self-defense. A special prosecutor decided last year not to file criminal charges against either of them. Georgia High court upholds sentence in slaying of restaurateur ATLANTA (AP) -- The Georgia Supreme Court has upheld the sentence of a man convicted of shooting a restaurant owner to death during a robbery in east Georgia in 2009. Attorneys for Michael Eugene Williams had argued that his sentence of life in prison with no chance for parole was cruel and unusual punishment for an "emotionally immature 20-year-old adolescent." The Supreme Court disagreed. In a ruling released Tuesday, the justices noted that Williams was an adult when he shot Jone Cheung between the eyes. The restaurant owner was preparing to close The House of Cheung King of Wings in Richmond County on May 30, 2009 when he was killed instantly by the gunshot. Virginia 2 attorneys challenge state lethal injections RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- Two Alexandria lawyers claim Virginia's lethal injection practices are illegal. Attorneys Meghan Shapiro and Christopher Leibig filed court papers Tuesday saying the execution team at the Department of Corrections is practicing medicine, pharmacy and anesthesiology without a license. The complaint, filed in Richmond Circuit Court, seeks an injunction halting the allegedly unauthorized practices. Shapiro said in a telephone interview that she's just trying to hold prison officials accountable. Identities of the execution team members are secret under state law. But Shapiro says depositions and discovery materials in federal lawsuits support her claims. In Virginia, death row inmates can choose lethal injection or electrocution. If they decline to choose, they get the injection. No executions are scheduled at this time. Louisiana Ex-Monroe councilmen appeal federal convictions MONROE, La. (AP) -- Former Monroe City Councilmen Robert Stevens and Arthur Gilmore are appealing their federal bribery and racketeering convictions. The News-Star reports Stevens and Gilmore filed the appeals and the motions Monday asking to be allowed to remain out of prison on unsecured bond pending their appeals. They are appealing their convictions as well as their sentences. The May convictions of Gilmore and Stevens were upheld last month after a federal judge decided against granting the pair a new trial. Last week, Stevens was sentenced to 51 months in prison, while Gilmore was sentenced to 41 months in prison. They have been ordered to report to prison by June 11. According to their motions, neither Gilmore nor Stevens pose flight risks or any danger to the safety of the community. Additionally, the motions argue that the councilmen's appeals are not for the purposes of delay and raise a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, new trial or a different sentence. Attorneys contend that Gilmore and Stevens have complied with every condition of pre-trial release and have never missed a court appearance. Gilmore's motion refers to the convictions as "a close one" because of the fact that the judge initially granted the defense's motion for new trial before later reversing that decision pursuant to the government's motion to reconsider. "Given that the motion for new trial was decided both ways, there is no question that the issues surrounding the granting and subsequent denial of a new trial is a 'close one' or 'one that could be decided either way,'" the motion states. "It is apparent that the trial court struggled with these issues, and is aware of the closeness of the decision. It would serve the interests of justice for (Gilmore) to remain free pending resolution by a higher court." Stevens' motion also considers the situation "fairly debatable." "It is apparent the court struggled with these issues, both on the original motion for new trial and the government's request for reconsideration, due to the time spent considering the issues prior to ruling," the motion states. "If the issue is resolved in (Stevens') favor on appeal, it will definitely result in at least a new trial, if not reversal of the conviction." Gilmore and Stevens were indicted in June 2010. Published: Wed, Apr 25, 2012