A federal judge who once served alongside Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen on Thursday refused to step aside, as Griffen had requested, from presiding over a lawsuit Griffen has filed against the Arkansas Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr., the third federal judge in Little Rock to whom the case was assigned, agreed with Griffen that the United States Code requires a judge to recuse from a case if his "impartiality might be questioned."
"But he has an equal obligation not to recuse himself when there is no reason to do so," Moody said in a five-page order signed Thursday, a little over a month after Griffen requested Moody's recusal.
"Every judge takes an oath of office to fairly and impartially preside over cases," Moody wrote. "Implicit in that oath is the notion that every judge will search their heart and mind to determine if they can live up to that oath in any particular case. I have done so in this case and have concluded that I can, and will, live up to the oath."
Moody added, "Furthermore, an objective review of the issues brought to bear in [Griffen's] motion do not lead me to the conclusion that I should disqualify pursuant to" Title 28, Section 455 of the U.S. Code.
Griffen filed his federal lawsuit on Oct. 5, naming each of the seven members of the Arkansas Supreme Court. The lawsuit accuses the justices of violating state and federal laws by disqualifying him in April from presiding over cases involving the death penalty or the state's lethal-injection protocol.
The justices took the action three days after Griffen, who is also a Baptist minister, attended a prayer vigil outside the Governor's Mansion to oppose executions while lying on a cot "in solidarity with Jesus."
Earlier that day, Griffen blocked the use of an execution drug, halting the state's efforts to begin a series of executions, in granting a temporary restraining order sought by the drug's manufacturer.
In his motion asking Moody to recuse from the federal case, Griffen noted that two fellow U.S. district judges, D. Price Marshall Jr. and Brian Miller, had recused. But both of those judges "had a different connection with the parties in this case," Moody wrote.
He noted that both of them, like Griffen, had previously served on the Arkansas Court of Appeals with judges who are parties on both sides of the lawsuit. But Moody has not.
While Marshall and Miller were required, while on the Court of Appeals, to serve on panels with the defendants and collaborate with them on decisions and opinions, the trial court judges in the 6th Judicial District, which includes Pulaski and Perry counties, "each have their own dockets and staff," Moody said. He added, "There is no collaborative decision-making process. Every judge's office is, in effect, an island unto itself."
While Griffen suggested that he and Moody worked alongside each other, "In reality, we worked in the same building and shared the same job title," Moody said. "We never consulted with each other on any case. We did not share a docket. We worked on different floors. I can recall no more than half a dozen times that I came into contact with [Griffen] while we worked at the courthouse together from 2011 through February 2014."
Moody noted that while each of his contacts with Griffen was "cordial, they consisted of no more than polite greetings."
"Further, he said, "I have no prior relationship, either professional or personal, with any Defendant."
Moody acknowledged that while he and Griffen practiced law at the same large firm 22 years ago, they never worked on cases together, practiced in different areas of the law and worked on separate floors. Moody said he wasn't aware that his father, former U.S. District Judge James Moody Sr., had ever been Griffen's mentor at the firm -- Wright, Lindsey and Jennings.
Moody also cast aside Griffen's stated concerns that Moody had participated in case assignment plans in Pulaski County Circuit Court, which Moody said was "a very simple process" of setting out which percentage of the overall district caseload would be assigned to each judge. Moody said the court's administrative judge "would get a consensus about the judges' collective desires" and then reduce it to writing and send it to the Supreme Court for approval.
Since leaving the circuit court in late February 2014, Moody said, he doesn't know how many case assignment plans have been in effect and, "I have no information about the formulation of the 2017 plan that is the subject matter of this litigation."
The federal judge also said Griffen went too far in describing circuit judges who may be called as witnesses in the federal case "personal friends" of Moody's.
"The degree of interaction I have had with these potential witnesses does not chin the bar for disqualification under Section 455," Moody said. "No relationship I have would interfere with the fair and impartial execution of my duties as presiding judge."
Only one of the Supreme Court justices who are the defendants in the case filed a response to Griffen's motion. In that response, Judge Josephine L. Hart said she had no problem with Moody presiding over the case.
The case has tentatively been set for trial on Jan. 28, 2019.
Metro on 01/12/2018