The court schedule of a federal judge who faces allegations of bias in the financial fraud trial of Sholom Rubashkin has raised fresh questions about judicial impartiality.
Defense attorneys argue that Rubashkin, who is serving a 27-year sentence, deserves a new trial because U.S. District Chief Judge Linda Reade failed to disclose all of the meetings she held with prosecutors before a 2008 immigration raid on Agriprocessors, a kosher meatpacking plant in northeast Iowa where Rubashkin served as an executive.
Oral arguments are scheduled for the afternoon of June 15 at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.
That morning, Reade – a judge in the Northern District of Iowa temporarily filling in on the appeals court – will hear cases with two of the three judges who will later listen to arguments in Rubashkin’s appeal. Reade is also scheduled to sit with the same judges a day earlier.
The scheduling is unfortunate because the subject of the appeal is judicial impartiality, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University.
However, he said he doesn’t expect it to disqualify any of the judges from hearing the case.
“I would call it awkward, but I don’t think there’s anything more to say about it,” he said.
The court does not view the schedule as a problem because judges “studiously avoid discussing pending cases,” said Michael Gans, clerk of court for the 8th Circuit.
“I’m sure if the two judges who were sitting on the case thought it presented a problem, they would have directed me to make other arrangements,” Gans said.
Reade’s decision to sit on Rubashkin’s 2009 fraud trial, in which he was convicted of 86 fraud charges, has drawn criticism from many legal experts.
Reade had previously acknowledged that she worked with the prosecution on logistics before the raid to ensure attorneys and interpreters would be available for the 389 workers arrested on immigration charges, but offered no further details.
The defense argued Reade failed to disclose that she began meeting with law enforcement officials more than six months before the raid, and that she discussed topics far beyond “logistical cooperation.”
Lubet, the law professor, said he can’t imagine why Reade decided to sit on the trial.
“Why not have a judge who had nothing to do with the prosecution, instead of one who had devoted significant time and energy into facilitating it?” he said.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
why are the defense lawyers not commenting are they not worried? I mean why would a federal judge rule against linda reade who sat next to them a couple of hours beforehand drank coffee and had a nice chat etc. This concerns me alot
This is not good….. someone has to make an effort to change this before it happens. Is that possible?
`why are the defense lawyers not commenting ` Since Judge Reade will not be sitting on their case, they do not want to be complainers, it can only hurt. Legally & procedurally there is no violation.
Horrible. This is real abuse. Hobnobery. How on earth is anyone supposed to get a fair trial in America with rules like this? Now they have to hurt their associate’s feelings in order to protect an American citizen. if they rule against her they know too well that she could one day rule against them. This must be dealt with in another state.
1) The community of judges is relatively small. It is virtually impossible for them not to know one another.
2) MOST, not all, Judges would actually play by the rules and not discuss the case that was coming before them the next day.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
This is a terrible development. Get Linda Reade out of there or do something. Rabbi Rubashkin deserves better and his lawyers should be doing everything in their power to prevent this travesty.
” How on earth is anyone supposed to get a fair trial in America with rules like this? ”
Well, this is what you get after a generation of packing the courts with Law And Order Lock ‘Em Up And Throw Away The Key judges.
But hey, I’m just a whiny liberal, right?