Case Title: Ex Parte Bryant

Citation: 682 So. 2d 39

Docket Number: 1951041

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
682 So. 2d 39 (1996)
Ex parte Thomas E. BRYANT.
(In re State of Alabama
v.
Thomas E. Bryant).
1951041.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 19, 1996.
*40 Ronald W. Wise, Montgomery, and William M. Bowen, Jr., of Steiner, Crum & Baker, Montgomery, for Petitioner.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., LaVette Lyas-Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Respondent.
HOUSTON, Justice.
Thomas E. Bryant petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing that his pending criminal trial be conducted by a circuit court judge from outside Alabama's 13th Judicial Circuit (Mobile County), because of an alleged potential for bias against him on the part of judges from Mobile County due to the peculiar nature of the case against him. In the alternative, Bryant asks for a writ of mandamus directing Mobile County Circuit Court Judge Chris Galanos to recuse himself from presiding over the criminal case against him.
Bryant petitioned this Court for extraordinary relief pursuant to Rule 21(e)(1), Ala. R.App.P., after the Court of Criminal Appeals, with one judge dissenting, denied his original petition for the writ of mandamus. The facts underlying this petition were set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in its opinion:
Ex parte Bryant, 675 So. 2d 552, 553 (Ala. Crim.App.1996).
In Ex parte Cotton, 638 So. 2d 870, 872 (Ala.1994), this Court stated:
The standard for recusal is an objective one: whether a reasonable person knowing everything that the judge knows would have a "reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality." Cotton, 638 So. 2d  at 872. The focus of our inquiry, therefore, is not whether a particular judge is or is not biased toward the petitioner; the focus is instead on whether a reasonable person would perceive potential bias or a lack of impartiality on the part of the judge in question. In In re Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350, 357 (Ala.1984), this Court wrote:
(Some emphasis original; some emphasis added.) Justice Jones, in a special concurrence in Morgan County Commission v. Powell, 292 Ala. 300, 312, 293 So. 2d 830, 840 (1974), eloquently stated the reasoning behind this objective "reasonable person/appearance of impropriety" standard:
Applying these principles to Bryant's first contention, we must determine if the extraordinary facts underlying the case against Bryant and the peculiar nature of the case against him "are such that it is reasonable for a party, for members of the public, or for counsel to question the impartiality of a circuit court judge from Mobile County. Cotton, 638 So. 2d  at 872. The issue is not whether any of those judges are actually biased against Bryant. The undisputed facts show the following: (1) Bryant is accused of theft from conservatorships and estates over which he was appointed by Mobile County judges to act as guardian or conservator; (2) The theft that he is accused of is both systematic and enormous ($3,000,000-plus); (3) The allegations against Bryant have been the *42 focus of intense media coverage; (4) Bryant's change of venue motion was granted because of the high-profile nature of the case against him and the perceived local bias against him; (5) The first Mobile County circuit court judge to whom Bryant's case was assigned chose voluntarily to remove himself from Bryant's case after Bryant made his first motion for recusal; and (6) Bryant was a very active member of the Mobile County bar, having recently served as president of the county bar association, and he had been active in, or at least a contributor to, a large number of Mobile County judicial election campaigns.
After having considered the very peculiar nature of the case against Bryant and the facts surrounding that case, we hold that Bryant is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering that he be tried before a circuit court judge from outside the 13th Judicial Circuit. Such an order as this is reserved for only the most extraordinary of circumstances. Especially relevant to our decision in this case is the nature of the crime Bryant is charged with committing. The State's case is based solely upon Bryant's alleged theft of millions of dollars from various conservatorships, guardianships, and estates over which Bryant had been appointed by Mobile County probate and circuit court judges to serve in a fiduciary capacity. The essence of the charges against Bryant is a systematic, intentional, and egregious violation of the trust that had been placed in Bryant by Mobile County's judiciary. Considering the extreme facts of this controversial case, reasonable persons would have reason to question the impartiality of the judges of the 13th Judicial Circuit, whose trust the defendant is charged with grievously breaching.
Because we hold that Bryant is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering that his trial be conducted by a circuit court judge from outside the 13th Judicial Circuit, we need not address Bryant's contention that Judge Galanos, who serves on the 13th Judicial Circuit, should be ordered to recuse.
WRIT GRANTED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, KENNEDY, and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
ALMON and COOK, JJ., concur in the result.
BUTTS, J., dissents.