Post by Logan on Jun 10, 2016 3:57:52 GMT -6
RALEIGH -- The chief resident Superior Court judge in Cumberland County agreed on Thursday to let another judge preside over hearing on four Racial Justice Act cases.
Judge James Ammons Jr. told attorneys for four death row inmates that he would ask the state Administrative Office of the Courts to appoint someone else to hear the prisoners’ claims that racial bias infected their cases and opportunity for fair trials.
But Ammons, a former Cumberland County prosecutor with family ties to state law enforcement officers, did not do so without first expressing his distaste for the recusal request.
Ammons told the attorneys for Marcus Reymond Robinson, Quintel Augustine, Tilmon Golphin and Christina Walters – the four inmates trying to win relief from their death sentences – that he could be fair and impartial, that he had sworn to administer justice without showing favoritism to anyone.
Read more here: www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article82826702.html
The judge made the correct decision to recuse himself from the case since a favorable that was not favorable towards the inmates would immediately be appealed. Looking at the situation with that in mind there is no point in wasting taxpayer money on a trial where allegations about the judge's impartiality are a foregone conclusion.
Judge James Ammons Jr. told attorneys for four death row inmates that he would ask the state Administrative Office of the Courts to appoint someone else to hear the prisoners’ claims that racial bias infected their cases and opportunity for fair trials.
But Ammons, a former Cumberland County prosecutor with family ties to state law enforcement officers, did not do so without first expressing his distaste for the recusal request.
Ammons told the attorneys for Marcus Reymond Robinson, Quintel Augustine, Tilmon Golphin and Christina Walters – the four inmates trying to win relief from their death sentences – that he could be fair and impartial, that he had sworn to administer justice without showing favoritism to anyone.
Read more here: www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article82826702.html
The judge made the correct decision to recuse himself from the case since a favorable that was not favorable towards the inmates would immediately be appealed. Looking at the situation with that in mind there is no point in wasting taxpayer money on a trial where allegations about the judge's impartiality are a foregone conclusion.