Courts

Federal Judge Says Defendant 'Looks Like A Criminal To Me,' Which Is Obviously A Problem

The Sixth Circuit agrees.

By  
on
handcuffs justice gavel

(Image via iStock)

Listen, I’m no federal judge. But I am pretty confident a judge can’t say that an as-of-yet-unconvicted defendant “looks like a criminal to me,” what with the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing enshrined in the fabric of our nation. But, alas, that’s what happened when Eastern District of Michigan Judge Stephen J. Murphy III presided over the drug case of Leron Liggins.

As reported by the ABA Journal, the problematic remarks happened during a January 2020 hearing after the defendant had fired his second lawyer and was looking for a third.

“I’m tired of this case. I’m tired of this defendant. I’m tired of getting the runaround. This has been going on since Feb. 6, 2018. …

“This guy has got my attention,” Murphy said to the defense lawyer. “What do you want me to do? This guy looks like a criminal to me. This is what criminals do. This isn’t what innocent people, who want a fair trial do. He’s indicted in Kentucky. He’s indicted here. He’s alleged to be dealing heroin, which addicts, hurts and kills people, and he’s playing games with the court. Do you agree?”

Murphy then refused to recuse himself from the trial, saying:

“Just because I got mad does not mean I’m biased” against Liggins, Murphy said. “I’m not, trust me. I give Mr. Liggins the same rights and opportunities here to demonstrate his innocence or lack of guilt as any other litigant.”

It will not surprise you at all that Murphy is white and Liggins is Black.

Sponsored

Liggins was convicted, but in an August 3rd decision, the Sixth Circuit said Murphy should have recused himself following the “personal and condemnatory remarks.” As as result, they overturned Liggins’s conviction and said that Murphy should not preside over the retrial.

“Difficult as the recusal standard may be to reach, we find that the district judge’s unacceptable remarks at the January 30, 2020, hearing satisfy it,” the appeals court said in an opinion by Judge Eric L. Clay, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.

Clay found Murphy’s remark about Liggins looking like a criminal to be “most troubling,” saying it “raises the specter” of racial bias.

The government had argued that Murphy’s remark was about Liggins’ conduct, not his appearance.

“But this court cannot decide what the district judge meant by his remark,” the appeals court said. “A reasonable observer could have interpreted the remark to indicate a prejudgment of Liggins’ guilt based on Liggins’ physical appearance.”

Murphy’s other “gratuitous commentary” also suggests prejudgment of guilt, the 6th Circuit said.

The appellate court went on to say, “we do not find the district judge’s conduct understandable in the least,” brushing off the district judge’s attempt at a justification. Good to see a solid benchslap given these awful comments.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.

Sponsored

Topics

, ,