Tag Archives: disqualification

Judge Dredd’s An OK Guy, Mr. Defendant – Update for March 14, 2025

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

‘THE JUDGE’S BIAS DIDN’T HURT YOU’, 7TH CIRCUIT TELLS PETITIONER

You may recall U.S. District Judge Colin S. Bruce of the Central District of Illinois, who was caught by a local newspaper seven years ago holding “extensive” ex parte communications with the US Attorney’s Office about criminal cases over which he was presiding. Ol’ Colin – I don’t call him “Your Honor” for reasons that should be clear – was a former Assistant United States Attorney who couldn’t leave his old pals behind. Ultimately, he was caught talking out of school to prosecutors about cases currently before him, complaining about defense attorneys and blasting assistant U.S. attorneys when he thought they were letting defendants wriggle out their misdeeds and escape the harsh justice they deserved..

colinbruce200221When the story broke, the Chief District Judge removed Bruce from federal criminal cases for a time and the 7th Circuit Judicial Council “found no evidence that Judge Bruce’s improper communications actually affected his decision in any case but admonished Judge Bruce that his actions had breached the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.”

Forty lashes with a wet noodle for a man who should have had the decency to resign. Is this a great country or what?

Kevin Pettis, who had been sentenced in 2018 by Bruce, filed a 28 USC § 2255 motion claiming the right to be resentenced. He argued that Bruce was biased, and “even if there was no showing of actual bias, Judge Bruce had a statutory obligation to recuse under 28 USC § 455(a) because of the appearance of bias.”

Another judge besides Bruce was appointed to hear the motion but found that Kevin failed to present any evidence of actual bias or a risk of bias so high that it rose to the level of a 14th Amendment due process violation.

wetnoodle240215Last week, the 7th Circuit affirmed the denial, reminding everyone how hard it is to get a judge removed for bias. The Circuit ruled that Kevin could “only offer[] as evidence of bias Judge Bruce’s publicly disclosed ex parte communications and his preexisting relationship with members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Neither the communications nor Judge Bruce’s preexisting relationship with the U.S. Attorney’s Office rises to the level of a due process violation.”

Pettis v. United States, Case No 23-1889, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4841 (7th Cir., March 3, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Judge Is Too Close to US Attorney; Defendant Wins Resentencing – Update for November 4, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

THE JUDGE IN THE TOWN’S GOT BLOODSTAINS ON HIS HANDS…

If you remember “The Night The Lights Went Out in Georgia,” you’re too old. But old or not, you have probably run into a federal judge who once was a government attorney. They account for something like 71% of all federal judges.


roybean191105Most all judges can check their prejudices at the door, but there are always exceptions. One is Judge Colin S. Bruce of the Central District of Illinois, who last year was unmasked by a local newspaper’s revelation that he was holding “extensive” private (called “ex parte”) communications with the U.S. Attorney’s Office about pending cases. An example: the newspaper published emails between Judge Bruce and a paralegal in the USAO about a criminal trial over which Judge Bruce presided, in which he complained that a novice prosecutor’s weak cross-examination had turned the case “from a slam-dunk for the prosecution to about a 60-40 for the defendant…”

After the story broke last year, the Chief District Judge removed Bruce from federal criminal cases. The 7th Circuit Judicial Council heard several complaints about the Judge, and admonished him for his misconduct. Only in the last two months ago has the Bruce resumed hearing criminal cases.

Jim Atwood, to whom Judge Bruce had already handed a 210-month sentence in a drug case, was on appeal when the story came out. Although the Judge had not communicated with the US Attorney about Jim’s case, he had communicated during the time about many others. Jim argued that in light of Judge Bruce’s conduct, the federal recusal statute entitles him to resentencing by a different judge. Last week the 7th Circuit agreed.

Title 28 USC, Sec 455(a), requires a judge to recuse himself from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The Circuit considered three factors: (1) the risk of injustice to the parties in this case, (2) the risk of injustice to parties in future cases, and (3) the risk of undermining public confidence in the judicial process.

Under the first factor, the Circuit considered “the potential unfairness to Atwood of upholding his sentence. Judge Bruce calculated the sentence based on the factors outlined in 18 USC 3553(a). As we have said before, the open-endedness of the 3553(a) factors leaves ample room for the court’s discretion. That discretion invites the risk that a judge’s personal biases will influence or appear to influence the sentence he imposes… Upholding Atwood’s sentence, then, creates a real risk of unfairness to him.” Conversely, a resentencing would impose very little cost on the government.

As for the second factor, the Circuit said, enforcing § 455(a) in this case “may prevent a substantive injustice in some future case” by encouraging judges to exercise caution in their communications.

badjudge160502Finally, the appellate court said, “we consider the risk of harm to the public’s confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. In sentencing, the most significant restriction on a judge’s ample discretion is the judge’s own sense of equity and good judgment. When those qualities appear to be compromised, the public has little reason to trust the integrity of the resulting sentence.”

As a consequence of his email experience, Judge Bruce no longer entertains unofficial inquiries from either prosecution or defense lawyers. He requires all communication to be through written motions. He also has terminated his in-court contacts with a number of parties to the email dispute, including federal prosecutors and federal public defenders. His response may seem petulant, but it would seem he’s already shown his stripes. Woe betide any federal criminal defendant in his courtroom: there would appear to be two prosecutors, one defense attorney, and no judge.

Champaign, Illinois, News-Gazette, Urbana federal judge’s email transgression still making waves (Oct. 29)

United States v. Atwood, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31826 (7th Cir. Oct. 24, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root