INTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS

FORTHETENTHCIRCUIT
JULIUSDARIUSJONES,

)
)
PetitionerAppellant,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANITATRAMMELL,Warden,
)
OklahomaStatePenitentiary,
)
)
RespondentAppellee
)

CASENO.136141

BRIEFOFAMICICURIAEINSUPPORTOFAPPELLANTSPETITION
FORREHEARING

LAWRENCEJ.FOX
GeorgeW.andSadellaD.Crawford
VisitingLecturerinLaw
YALELAWSCHOOL
127WallStreet
NewHaven,CT06511
(203)4329358
lawrence.fox@yale.edu
OfCounsel

PHILIPCHERNER
VICENTESEDERBERG
1244GrantStreet
Denver,CO80203
(303)8604501
philcherner@vicentesderberg.com
CounselofRecord

TABLEOFCONTENTS
INTERESTOFAMICICURIAE...............................................................................
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................
Introduction.....................................................................................................
I.

AUSAHolmesOpedExpressingHisOpinionofMr.Jones
TrialDemonstratesJudgeHolmesPartialityandBiasAgainst
Mr.Jones...............................................................................................

II.

BecauseHisOpedRenderedHimPartialinMr.JonesCase,
JudgeHolmeswasUnderaLegalandEthicalObligationto
DisqualifyHimself................................................................................

III.

TheOnlyRemedyforTheseSeriousJudicialEthicsViolations
isforaNewPaneltoHearMr.JonesAppeal....................................

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................
CERTIFICATIONOFCOMPLIANCE..................................................................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colo.,
289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002).............................................................................
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,
556 U.S. 868 (2009).............................................................................................
Health Serv. Acquisition Corp. v. Liljeberg,
796 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1986)...............................................................................
Ligon v. City of N.Y.,
736 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2013)..................................................................................
Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp.,
486 U.S. 847 (1988).........................................................................................
Mistretta v. U.S.,
488 U.S. 361.........................................................................................................
Roberts v. Bailar,
527 F.2d 125 (6th Cir. 1980).................................................................................
S. Pac. Commcn Co. v. Am, Tel. & Tel. Co.,
740 F.2d 980 (D.C. Cir. 1984)..............................................................................
In re School Asbestos Litigation,
977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992)..................................................................................
Stretton v. Disciplinary Bd.,
944 F.2d 137 (3d Cir. 1991)..................................................................................
U.S. v. Couch,
896 F.2d 78 (5th Cir. 1990)...................................................................................
U.S. v. Jordan,
49 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. 1995).................................................................................
U.S. v. Microsoft,
253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)................................................................................
2

U.S. v. Nickl,
427 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 2005).............................................................................
U.S. v. Pearson,
203 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2000)...........................................................................
STATUTES, RULES & REGULATIONS
28 U.S.C. 455.........................................................................................................
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES
H.R. Rep. 93-1453 (1974).........................................................................................
S. Rep. No. 93-419..................................................................................................
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges................................................................4, 5
Dan T. Coenen, To Defer or Not to Defer, 73 Minn. L. Rev. 899, 924-25
(1989).................................................................................................................
Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2011)...................................................................
Raymond McKoski, Disqualifying Judges When Their Impartiality Might
Reasonably Be Questioned, 56 Ariz. L. Rev. 411, 432 (2014).............................

INTERESTOFAMICICURIAE
The Ethics Bureau at Yale1 is a clinic composed of fifteen law school
students supervised by an experienced practicing lawyer, lecturer and ethics
teacher.TheBureauhasdraftedamicusbriefsinmattersinvolvinglawyerand
judicialconductandethics;hasassisteddefensecounselwithineffectiveassistance
of counsel claims implicating issues of professional responsibility; and has
providedassistance,counselandguidanceonaprobonobasistonotforprofit
legalserviceproviders,courts,andlawschools.Becausetheimpartialityofthe
judicialprocess,afundamentalelementofjudicialethics,hasbeenplacedatissue,
the Bureau believes it might assist the Court in resolving the important issues
presentedbythependingpetition.
KathleenClarkisProfessorofLaw,WashingtonUniversityinSt.Louis.
MonroeH.FreedmanisProfessorofLaw,HofstraUniversityLawSchool.Mark
HarrisonisalawyerinPhoenix,ArizonawithOsbornMaledon,andchairedthe
AmericanBarAssociationCommissiontoEvaluatetheCodeofJudicialConduct.

1TheEthicsBureauatYaleisastudentclinicoftheYaleLawSchool.Theviews

expressedhereinarenotnecessarilythoseofYaleUniversityorYaleLawSchool.
PursuanttoRule29(c)(5)oftheRulesofthisCourt,thisbriefwasnotwrittenin
wholeorinpartbycounselforanyparty,andnopersonorentityotherthanAmici
Curiaehasmadeamonetarycontributiontothepreparationandsubmissionofthis
brief.

SusanMartynistheStoeplerProfessorofLaw&Values,UniversityofToledo
CollegeofLaw.TheodoreJ.SchneyeristheMiltonO.RiepeProfessor(Emeritus),
UniversityofArizona,JamesE.RogersCollegeofLaw.

ARGUMENT
Introduction
Inouradversarysystemjudgeswieldawesomepower,andwiththatpower
comes great responsibility to maintain high standards of professional
responsibility.TheAmericanjudicialsystemispremisedupontheprinciplethat
anindependent,impartialandcompetentjudiciarywillinterpretandapplythe
lawthatgovernsoursociety.ModelCodeofJudicialConduct,Preamble(2011).
Under their ethical obligations, judges must make competent decisions in an
impartial manner, untainted by personal bias or prejudice. Preserving fair and
impartialcourtsissofundamentaltooursystemofjusticethatitisguaranteedby
theDueProcessClause,codifiedin28U.S.C.455,andenshrinedintheCodeof
ConductforUnitedStatesJudges2(CodeofConduct).
Amici believe the basic rights to an unbiased tribunal and these
preconditionstotheruleoflawandafairandimpartialsystemofjusticeareat
stakeinthisproceeding.Amicireachthisconclusionbecauseduringthetrialof
Mr. Jones in Oklahoma County in 2002, Judge Jerome Holmes, then deputy
2FederaljudgesaregovernedbytheCodeofConduct,whichwasadoptedbythe

UnitedStatesJudicialConferenceandprovidesguidanceonissuesofjudicial
integrity,independenceandimpartiality.AlthoughtheCodeofConductdoesnot
carrylegalforce,muchofthecaselawconcerningjudicialdisciplinereliesonboth
455andtheCodeofConduct.See,e.g.,InreSchoolAsbestosLitigation,977
F.2d764,78385(3dCir.1992).

criminalchiefintheUnitedStatesAttorneysOfficefortheWesternDistrictof
Oklahoma(anAUSA),publishedanincendiaryopedpieceinTheOklahoman
concerningtheprosecutionofMr.Jones.3Inthisopinioncolumn,AUSAHolmes
expressedhispersonalviewofthecaseaviewheadmittedwasbased,noton
attendanceatthetrial,butreportsinthemedia.Attach.A.OnOctober31,2014,
Mr.JonescounselfoundherselfarguingMr.Jonesappealofhisfederalhabeas
relief claim before Chief Judge Briscoe, Judge OBrien, and Judge Holmes
notwithstandingthefactthathehadpreviouslypublishedastatementconcerning
thesamecasethatleftnodoubtabouthisviewoftheprosecution.
Concernedaboutthejudicialethicsissuesraisedinthisproceeding,amici
believetheopeddemonstratespartialityandbias,ifnotoutrightanimus,against
Mr.Jones,astateofmindthatrequiredJudgeHolmestorecusehimselffromthe
case.AmicithusurgethisCourttograntMr.Jonesarehearing,arehearingthat
shouldbeconductedbeforeanentirelynewpanel,notsimplyonethatreplaces
JudgeHolmes.
I.AUSA Holmes Oped Expressing His Opinion of Mr. Jones Trial
DemonstratesJudgeHolmesPartialityandBiasAgainstMr.Jones

3AcopyoftheopedisattachedtoappellantsbriefasAttachmentAandwillbe

referredtoassuchinthisbrief.

Supreme Court opinions, the U.S. Code, and the Code of Conduct all
admonishjudgestoremainimpartialanddetached,hearbothsidesofthecaseand
todecide their cases fairlyandindependently. E.g.,Code of Conductfor U.S.
Judges 2A (judges must act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.). This standard
reflectsthefundamentalrighttopresentonescasetoanimpartialtribunal,aright
guaranteedbytheDueProcessClause. Capertonv.A.T.MasseyCoalCo.,556
U.S.868,876(2009).Thisrightisessentialtoourjusticesystemforajudges
conscious or unconscious partiality threatens to infect both the process and
outcome of a trial. Raymond McKoski, Disqualifying Judges When Their
ImpartialityMightReasonablyBeQuestioned,56Ariz.L.Rev.411,432(2014).
JudicialimpartialityisnotonlycrucialinprotectinglitigantsDueProcess
rights, but also in maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
Accordingly, judges must not only be impartial in fact, but also maintain the
appearance of impartiality. The test under the Code of Conduct is whether
reasonablepeoplewithknowledgeofallrelevantcircumstanceswouldconclude
thatthejudgeshonesty,integrity,impartiality,temperament,orfitnesstoserveas
ajudgeisimpaired.CodeofConductforU.S.JudgesCanon2ACommentary;
see U.S. v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 115 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Appearance [of

impropriety]maybeallthereis,butthatisenoughtoinvoketheCanonsand
455(a).).Sucharigorousstandardfortheappearanceofimproprietyisnecessary
becausethepubliccannotmaintainconfidenceinthecourtsacrucialcomponent
oftheruleoflawifitdoesnotbelievethemtobemodelsofindependence,
integrity, and impartiality. Cf. Mistretta v. U.S., 488 U.S. 361, 407 (The
legitimacy of the Judicial Branch ultimately depends on its reputation for
impartialityandnonpartisanship.).
ThestrongpersonalviewsandinflammatorycondemnationofMr.Jonesin
the oped reflect Judge Holmes demonstrated bias and inability to decide the
presentcasefairly.Inhisoped,AUSAHolmespronouncedafinaljudgmenton
thestrengthof theevidence,as heunderstooditfromreadingnews reports,
concludingtherewasampleevidenceforarationaljurytofindthat[Mr.]Jones,
brutallygunneddownaninnocentstranger.Attach.A.Furthermore,AUSA
Holmesprovidedanunequivocalopiniononthepropersentencing,assertingthat
Mr. Jones deserved to die for his acts. Attach. A. Although a judge is not
requiredtorecusehimselfwhenhehasexpressedviewsonlawsorpolicies, 4this
opedgoesbeyondamerestatementofopiniononalegalsubject.Instead,based
onmediacoveragealone,AUSAHolmesprejudgedthestrengthoftheevidence
4See,e.g.,S.Pac.CommcnCo.v.Am,Tel.&Tel.Co.,740F.2d980,990(D.C.

Cir.1984).

against Mr. Jones, pronounced Mr. Jones guilt and decided what the proper
sentencingshouldbeallbeforehelaterheardthecaseasajudge.
AUSAHolmesopinioncolumnunabashedlyprovidedastatementofhow
he would decide Mr. Jones casea prejudgment that is fundamentally
incompatiblewiththejusticesystemsidealofanadjudicationreachedafterafair
hearing,givingdueconsiderationtotheargumentsandevidenceproducedbyall
parties. Strettonv.DisciplinaryBd.,944F.2d137,142(3dCir.1991).Whena
judge,evenbeforehebecomesajudge,predetermineswhathebelievestobethe
properoutcomeofacaseinthismanner,boththelegitimacyofthejudiciaryand
theruleoflawareundermined.SeeLigonv.CityofN.Y.,736F.3d118(2dCir.
2013)(judgewhointimat[ed]herviewsonthemeritsofacasethathadyettobe
filedcreatedappearanceofpartiality);944F.2dat142(ifjudgesprejudgecases
that later come before them, the concept of impartial justice becomes a
mockery). Because AUSA Holmes unambiguously expressed how he would
decideMr.Jonescase,noreasonableobserverwouldconcludehecouldthenbefit
toserveasanimpartialandindependentdecisionmakerinthepresentproceeding.
AUSAHolmesnotonlyexpressedconclusionsaboutthelegalissuesinthe
presentmatter,butalsodemonstratedpersonalbiasagainstMr.Jonesbasedon
extrajudicialknowledge.SeeRobertsv.Bailar,527F.2d125,127(6thCir.1980)

(disqualifying judge who expressed favorable view of defendant based on

extrajudicialknowledge).AUSAHolmeswrotethatMr.Jonesbrutallygunned
downaninnocentstrangerandwaswillingtocommitmurderinthemostcold
bloodedwaytostealthevehiclehedesired.Attach.A.AUSAHolmeshadthus
formedacondemnatoryjudgmentofMr.Jonesperceivedconductandmotivations
basedonmediacoverageofthecase,andfeltstronglyenoughabouthisviewsto
taketheunusualstepofpublishingthemwithoutregardtotheeffectsuchpretrial
publicity might have on the upcoming trial. In the face of such an absolute
denunciationofMr.Jones,areasonableobserverwouldconcludethatthisabsolute
condemnationofMr.JonesdestroyedJudgeHolmesabilitytohearbothsidesof
the case and decide it fairly and impartially, no matter when the adjudication
occurred.
Afortiori,thereistheappearanceofimproprietyandpartiality.Regardless
ofJudgeHolmessubjectivestateofmind,hispriorpublicexpressionofhisstrong
viewsregardingtheprosecutionMr.Jonesrenderitimpossibleforareasonable
observertobelieveJudgeHolmescoulddecidethepresentcaseimpartially.The
publicisentitledtoharbornosuchseriousdoubtsconcerningthepartialityofthe
justicesystem.SeeLiljebergv.HealthServ.AcquisitionCorp.,486U.S.847,864

(1988)([T]operformitshighfunctioninthebestwayjusticemustsatisfythe
appearanceofjustice.).
II.Because His Oped Rendered Him Partial in Mr. Jones Case, Judge
HolmeswasUnderaLegalandEthicalObligationtoDisqualifyHimself
Given the clear evidence that his oped created, at the very least, an
appearance of partialityif not partiality itselfJudge Holmes should have
recusedhimselffromthepresentmatter.Under455(a),ajudgemustdisqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. 28 U.S.C. 455(a). The Code of Conduct reflects this standard,
stipulatingthatajudgeshalldisqualifyhimselfinaproceedinginwhich[his]
impartialitymightreasonablybequestioned.CodeofConductforU.S.Judges
Canon3(C)(1).Thestandardindeterminingwhetherajudgeisrequiredtorecuse
himselfisobjective,5focusingnotonwhetherthejudgeissubjectivelybiasedbut
instead disqualifying judges when their impartiality might be reasonably
questioned. See, e.g.,U.S.v.Nickl,427F.3d1286,1298(10thCir.2005). 6 This

5Congressamended455in1974toaddthisobjectivestandard,eliminatingthe

dutyorsitandhearacase.H.R.Rep.931453,at5(1974).
6TherecusalstandardsundertheDueProcessClauseand455differ;whilethe
DueProcessClauserequiresajudgetorecuseherselfwhenareasonablejudge
wouldfinditnecessarytodoso,455requiresdisqualificationwhenothers
wouldhavereasonablecausetoquestionthejudgesimpartiality.U.S.v.Couch,
896F.2d78,(5thCir.1990).

standardisnecessarytomaintainpublicconfidenceintheintegrityofthejudicial
system.486U.S.at858n.7(Thegenerallanguageof[455(a)]wasdesignedto
promotepublicconfidenceintheintegrityofthejudicialprocessbyreplacingthe
subjectiveinhisopinionstandardwithanobjectivetest.);H.R.Rep.931453,at
5(1974)(Thisgeneralstandardisdesignedtopromotepublicconfidenceinthe
impartiality of the judicial processif there is a reasonable factual basis for
doubtingthejudgesimpartiality,heshoulddisqualifyhimself).
Because his prior opinion column demonstrated partiality, Judge Holmes
wasobligatedunder455(a)andCanon3(C)(1)todisqualifyhimselffromthe
case.AsdiscussedsupraPartI,AUSAHolmesexpressedstrongviewsconcerning
thestrengthoftheevidence,thedefendantsguiltandthepropersentencinginhis
oped.Suchstatementsprovideareasonablefactualbasisfordoubtingthejudges
impartialityandthusnecessitaterecusal.S.Rep.No.93419,at5.
Furthermore,theJudicial Conferencespecificallycontemplatedthatthese
circumstanceswouldrequirerecusal,includingwhenajudgehasexpressedan
opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy. Code of
ConductforU.S.JudgesCanon3(C)(1)(e).Theexceptionalandpublicmannerin
which Judge Holmes previously articulated a strong bias against Mr. Jones

destroys any reasonable possibility that he could have acted as an impartial

decisionmakerinthecase,thusrequiringhisdisqualification.
ThefactthatdefensecounselonlybecameawareofJudgeHolmespriorop
ed after the panel issued its decision did not relieve the Judge of his ethical
obligationtorecusehimself.See,e.g.,U.S.v.Pearson,203F.3d1243,1277(10th
Cir.2000)(Ajudgehasacontinuingdutytorecuseunder455(a)ifsufficient
factual grounds exist to cause a reasonable, objective person, knowing all the
relevantfatstoquestionthejudgesimpartiality.).Norisitconsistentwiththe
obligationsofjudgestoassertthatdefensecounselshouldhavediscoveredthisop
edearlier.Thepurposeof455(a)istoavoideventheappearanceofpartiality.
Therefore,ifanobjectiveobserverwouldquestionthejudgesabilitytodecidethe
case impartially, then there is an appearance of partiality and the judges
forgetfulnesscannotprovidethesortofobjectivelyascertainablefactthatcan
avoidtheappearanceofpartiality. HealthServ.AcquisitionCorp.v.Liljeberg,
796F.2d796,802(5thCir.1986).Furthermore,iftherewereanyfactthatwould
havecompromisedthejudgesabilitytohearthiscase,betweenthejudgewho
wrote the oped and the lawyers who had no knowledge and no obligation to
researchpotentialgroundsforthejudgesrecusal,publicpolicymustplacethe
burdenofdisclosureandrecusalonthejudge.

GivenJudgeHolmesextraordinaryandpublicprejudgmentofMr.Jones
allegedconduct,thestrengthoftheevidenceandtheappropriatesentencing,amici
donotbelievethisisaclosecase.Butevenifitwereaborderlinecase,Judge
Holmesneverthelessshouldhavedisqualifiedhimselftomaintaintheappearance
ofanimpartialjudiciary. See, e.g., Brycev.EpiscopalChurchintheDioceseof
Colo.,289F.3d648,659(10thCir.2002)(Iftheissueofwhether455requires
disqualificationisacloseone,thejudgemustberecused.).
III.TheOnlyRemedyforTheseSeriousJudicialEthicsViolationsisforaNew
PaneltoHearMr.JonesAppeal
ThesejudicialethicsviolationscannotbecuredsimplybydroppingJudge
Holmes from the present panel or permittingreargument witha substitute for
JudgeHolmes.Thegoalof455istoavoideventheappearanceofpartiality,and
thestatuteprovidesjudicialdiscretionindeterminingaremedytobestservethis
purpose. SeeU.S.v.Jordan,49F.3d152,160(5thCir.1995)(Section455(a)
silentlydelegatestothejudiciarythetaskoffashioningtheremediesthatwillbest
servethepurposeofthelegislation.).Inthiscase,theonlywaytoremedythe
ethicalproblemsandremovetheappearanceofpartialityisforanewthreejudge
panel,perhapsevenapanelfromanotherCircuit,todecidethecase.Cf.id.at160
& n.18 (where judges failure to recuse herself required resentencing, court

appointed judge outside district to take proper precaution in maintaining

appearanceofimpartiality).
Judges Briscoe and OBrien likely had no idea of Judge Holmes
undisclosed prior conduct and those two judges participated in oral argument,
deliberations and the opinion writing process with Judge Holmes, in complete
ignoranceofhispriorarticle.Nevertheless,thosejudgeshadtobeaffectedby
JudgeHolmespartiality,asanyjudgewouldbeinacollaborativeprocesswhere
onepartyparticipatesvigorously,butwithahiddenagenda.Cf.DanT.Coenen,To
DeferorNottoDefer,73Minn.L.Rev.899,92425(1989)(The[CircuitCourt]
panelsystemcreatesadeliberativeprocessinwhichcriticalthinkersofdiverse
backgrounds and experiences may test, reflect on, and refine their colleagues
observations.).Onceinkhasbeenspilledintothemilk,thedisclosureofthatfact
doesnothelpreturnthemilktoitsoriginalcondition.Whatisinsteadrequiredisa
panelwithnewjudges,freefromtaint,deliberatinganddecidingthemeritsofthis
importantappeal.
Indeed,therecanbenobetterexampleoftheimportanceofthestandardof
appearanceofimpropriety.Asitislikelytheothertwojudgeswereunawarethat
JudgeHolmeshadexpressedanearlieropiniononthemeritsofthecase,letalone
howextravagantlyheexpressedhisviews,allowingthosejudgestodecidethis

appealonreargumentwouldproducearesultwiththesameethicaltaintasthe
earlier adjudication. As with all appearances of impropriety, that concern is
indelibleandcannotbecuredbyarehearingwiththesamejudges.
CONCLUSION
TheforgoinganalysisofJudgeHolmespriorstatementstriggertheconcern
ofamici thatthepresent matterwasnotconductedinaccordwiththejudicial
ethicsobligationsestablishedbystatuteandtheJudicialConference.Theseissues
concern the basis of our judicial systemthe principle that an independent,
impartialandcompetentjudiciarywillapplythelaw.Approachingtheseissues
from a professional responsibility perspective will not only help correct the
immediate harm resulting from Judge Holmes participation in the underlying
proceedings,butwillalsoprotectpublicconfidenceinthejudiciary.Amicithus
requestthattheCourtgrantMr.Jonesarehearingbeforeanewpanel.

CERTIFICATIONOFCOMPLIANCEWITHRULE(32)(a)(7)(C)
CertificateofCompliancewithTypeVolumeLimitation,Typeface
Requirements,TypefaceRequirements,andTypeStyleRequirements
1. ThisbriefcomplieswiththetypevolumelimitationofFed.R.App.P.32(a)
(7)(B)becausethisbriefcontains 2990 words,excludingthepartsofthe
briefexemptedbyFed.R.App.P.32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. ThisbriefcomplieswiththetypefacerequirementsofFed.R.App.P.32(a)
(5)andthetypestylerequirementsofFed.R.App.P.32(a)(6)becausethis
briefhasbeenpreparedinaproportionallyspacedtypefaceusingMicrosoft
OfficeWord2007in14pointfontTimesNewRomanstyle.
DATE:January22,2015
s/LawrenceJ.Fox

LAWRENCEJ.FOX
GeorgeW.andSadellaD.Crawford
VisitingLecturerinLaw
YALELAWSCHOOL
127WallStreet
NewHaven,CT06511
(203)4329358
lawrence.fox@yale.edu
OfCounsel

s/PhilipCherner

PHILIPCHERNER
VICENTESEDERBERG
1244GrantStreet
Denver,CO80203
(303)8604501
philcherner@vicentesderberg.com
CounselofRecord