# Supreme Court of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #012

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 13th day of March, 2018 , are as follows:

BY WEIMER, J. :

2016 -K P -0 234 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ROGERS LACAZE (Parish of Orleans)

Thi s matter is currently before the court in light of the remand

by the United States Supreme Court in LaCaze v. Louisiana, 138

S.Ct. 60 (2017), which vacated the decision in State v. LaCaze,

16

- 0234 (La. 12/16/16), 208 So.3d 856, in which the defendant’s

wri t application related to his petition for post- conviction

relief was denied, and the defendant’s conviction was upheld. On

remand, this court was instructed to consider whether the trial

judge’s recusal should have been required because “objectively

speak ing, ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the

judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally

tolerable’” under the circumstances. After carefully considering

all the facts, we find the defendant has not shown that the

circumstances cre ated an unconstitutionally high risk of bias,

and the original denial of the defendant’s recusal claim in

LaCaze, 16

- 0234, 208 So.3d 856, is correct.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the court of appeal

correctly reversed the trial court’s order f or a new trial and

properly reinstated Defendant’s conviction. Defendant’s request

for substantive relief is denied.

WRIT DENIED.

### 0 3/1 3 /1 8

SUPREM E CO URT O F LO UISIANA

NO. 2 0 16 -KP-0 2 3 4

STATE OF LOUI SI A NA

VERSUS

ROGERS LACAZ E

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

W EI MER , J u st i ce.

Th i s m at t er i s cu rren tl y b efo re t h e co u rt in li g h t o f th e r e m an d b y t h e Un i t ed

St at es Su p rem e Co u rt i n La Ca ze v

. Lo ui s i a na

, 1 38 S.Ct

. 6 0 (2 01 7 ), w h i ch v acat ed

t h e d eci s i o n i n Sta te v. La C a ze

, 1 6 -0 2 3 4 (La. 1 2 /1 6/ 1 6), 20 8 So .3 d 8 5 6, in wh i ch t h e

d efen d an t ’ s wri t ap p l i cat io n re l a t e d to h i s p et it io n fo r p o s t -co n v i ct i on rel i ef was

d en ied

, an d th e d efen dan t ’ s co n v i ct i o n w as u ph el d

. On rem an d

, t h i s c o u r t was

i n s t ru ct ed t o co n s i d er wh et h er t h e t ri al ju d g e’ s recu sal s h ou l d h av e b e e n req u i red

b ecau s e “ o bject i v el y s p eak i n g

, ‘ t h e p ro b ab i l i t y o f act u al bi as o n t h e p art of t h e ju d g e

o r d e c i s i o n m ak er i s t o o h ig h t o b e co n st it u t i o n al l y t ol erab l e’ ” u n d er t h e

ci rcu m s t an ces

. 1 Aft er carefu l l y co ns i deri n g al l t h e fact s

, we fi nd t h e d efen d an t h as

n o t s h o w n t h at t h e ci rcu m s t an ces creat ed an u nco n s t i t u t i o n al ly hi g h ri s k o f b i as

, an d

1 See Rippo v. Baker , 137 S.Ct. 905, 907 (2017).t h e o ri gi n al d en ial o f t he d efen d an t ’ s recu s al cl ai m i n La Ca ze , 1 6 -0 2 3 4, 2 0 8 So .3 d

8 5 6 , i s co rrect

.

2FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI STORY

On M arch 4

, 19 9 5

, Ro gers LaCaze (Defen d an t ) an d An t oi n et t e Fran k (Fran k ),

t h en an o ffi cer o f t h e New Orl ean s Po l i ce Dep art m en t (NOPD), d in ed t o g et h er at Ki m

An h Vi et n am es e r e s t au ran t i n New Orl ean s Eas t ju s t befo re cl o s i ng t im e. 2 Th ey

ret u rn ed s h o rt l y aft er cl o s i ng i n F r an k ’ s po l i ce u n i t

, ap p aren t l y t o co m m i t arm ed

ro b b ery d es p i t e t h e p res en ce o f o ff-d ut y NOPD Offi cer Ro n n i e W i ll i am s

. Offi cer

W i ll i am s an d t w o res tau ran t em p l o y ees (s i b l i ng s Ha an d Cu o n g Vu ) were fat al l y s h ot

d u ri n g t h e en s u i n g en co un t er. 3

Defen d an t an d Fran k were i n d i ct ed fo r t h e t ri p l e m u rd ers an d were s ep arat el y

t ri ed –b o t h b efo re J u d g e Fran k M aru l l o

. D efen d an t ’ s tri al was hel d fi rs t

. In cl o s i n g

arg u m en t at D efen d an t’ s t ri al

, th e s t at e co n ced ed t h at no su rv i v o rs h ad wi t n es s ed t h e

s h o o ti n g s an d th at “ we w i l l nev er k n o w [p reci s el y ] wh at h ap p en ed ” t o t h e Vu s i b l i ng s

i n t he k i t ch en

, b u t n ev ert h el es s m ai n t ai n ed t h e ev id en ce s ho wed t h at Defen d an t s h ot

Offi cer W i l l i am s as Fran k g at h ered t h e ot h ers i n t h e k it ch en area. Sta te v

. La Ca ze

,

9 9 -0 58 4

, p

. 1 0 (La. 1 / 2 5 / 0 2 ), 8 2 4 So .2 d 1 0 63

, 10 7 1. Th e st at e al so co n ced ed t h at i t

ap p eared t h at ju s t o n e g u n

, a 9 m m pi s t o l

, w as u s ed to k i l l al l t h ree v i c t i m s

, b ut

a s s e r t e d i t was i m

m at eri al w h i ch p erp et rat o r h ad p u l l ed t h e t ri g ger b ecau s e t h e

ev i d en ce s h o wed t hat bo t h were p res en t an d ex h ib i t ed s p eci fi c i n t en t t o k i l l

. Id

. ,

9 9 -0 58 4 at 1 0 , 8 2 4 So .2 d at 1 0 7 1 -7 2

.

A ju ry fo u n d Defen d an t g u i l t y o f t h ree co un t s o f fi rs t deg ree m u rd er an d

u n an im o u s l y s en t en ced h i m t o d eat h

. Hi s co n v i ct i o n an d s en t en ce were affi rm ed by

2 F r ank knew the owners of the restaurant as she had previously work e d s e c u r ity f o r them at the

restaurant.

3 State v. LaCaze , 16-0234, pp. 1-3 (L a. 12/16/16), 208 So.3d 856, 858-59.

3t h i s co u rt i n La Ca ze

, 99 -0 5 8 4

, 8 2 4 So .2 d 1 0 63

, an d Defen d an t ’ s wri t o f cer t i o rari

was d en i ed i n La Ca ze v . Lo ui si a na , 5 3 7 U.S. 8 6 5 (2 0 0 2 ).

Po s t co nv i ct i o n

, Defen dan t l earn ed t h at

, i n t h e co u rs e o f i n v es t ig at i n g t h e

m u rd ers , NOPD d i s co v ered t h at Fran k o b tai n ed t wo g u n s fro m t h e NOPD p ro p ert y

an d ev i d en ce ro o m

, o n e o f wh i ch (a 9 m m p i s to l) was th e s am e t y

p e u s ed i n t h e t ri p l e

m u rd ers fo r wh i ch D efen dan t was co n v i ct ed

. Bo t h g u n s were rel eas ed t o Fran k by

Offi cer Dav i d Tal l ey

. 4 Befo re Defen d an t ’ s tri al

, t h e NOPD Pu b l i c In t eg ri t y Bu reau

(Bu reau ) co m

m en ced an i n v es t i g at i o n i n t o wh et h er Tal l ey h ad v i o lat ed dep art m en t al

ru l es an d reg u lat i o n s i n rel eas i ng t h e g u n s

. Th e n o n -9 m m gu n w as rel eas ed t o Fran k

p u rs u an t t o an o rd er p u rp o rt ed l y s i g n ed b y Ju d ge M o rri s Reed ; h owev er, wh en s h o wn

t h e o rd er b y Bu reau i n v es t i g at ors

, Ju d g e Reed d en i ed t h at t h e s i g n at u re o n t h e o rd er

was h is , o b s erv i n g t h at h i s n am e was m i s s pel l ed (“ Rei d ”).

Bu reau i n v es t i g at or s al s o i n q u i red i n t o wh et h er t h e 9 m m g u n was rel eas ed

p u r s u a nt t o a l eg i t i m at e ord er s i g n ed b y Ju d ge Fran k M aru l l o

, i .e

. , wh et h er J u d g e

M aru l l o’ s s i g n at u re o n t he rel eas e was g en u i n e. No t ab l y

, Fran k fal s el y rep ort ed t h e

9 m m gu n s t o l en 1 0 d ay s b efo re t h e m u rd ers

. In l at e 19 9 8

, ro ug h l y t h ree y ears aft er

Defen d an t an d Fran k ’ s t ri al s

, a 9 m m gu n wi t h p art i al s eri al n u m b ers

, s u gg es t i n g t h at

i t m ay h av e b een th e m

u rd er weap o n, was f

o u n d i n p o ss es s i o n o f Fran k ’ s b ro t h er,

Ad am Fran k

.

J u d g e Maru l l o co op erat ed wi t h t h e Bu reau ’ s i n tern al i n v es t i g at i on o f Offi cer

T a l l ey befo re D efen d an t ’ s cas e was as s i g n ed to h i s d o ck et

. W h en i n i t i al l y

i n t erv i ewi n g J u d g e M aru l l o

, Bu reau i nv es t i g at o r Serg ean t Ro b ert Harri s o n pres e nted

t h e rel eas e o rd er p u rp o rt ed l y b eari n g J ud g e M aru l l o ’ s si g n at u re, at wh ich p o i n t J u d g e

M aru l l o “ v i ewed t h e do cu m en t

, an d co m p ared i t t o sev eral o t h er d o cu m en ts wi t h h i s

4 Officer Talley

was then in charg e of the NOPD property and evidence room g

un vault.

4s i gn at u re,” b efo re s t at i ng t h at “ h e d i d n o t b el i ev e t h e co u rt o rd er i n q u es t io n was h i s

s i gn at u re.” J u d ge M aru l l o ex p lai n ed t o Sg t

. Harri s o n t hat “ [s ] i n ce t h e co u rt o rd er d id

n o t h av e a des cri pt io n o f t h e weap on t o b e rel eas ed

, he wo u l d n o t h av e s i g ned [i t ] .”

Fro m th i s ex ch an g e, Sg t

. Harri s o n o p i n ed t h at t he s i g n a t u r e h ad b een fo rg ed

. To

s u p p ort h i s o p i n i o n, Sg t

. Harri s o n ag ai n co n t act ed J u d g e M aru ll o t o s ecu re a reco rd ed

s t at em en t

. Becau s e D efen d an t ’ s cas e h ad b een as s i g n ed t o Ju d g e M aru l l o

, t h e ju d g e

“ wo u l d no t m ak e a s t at em en t

. .. u n t il t h e cas e h a[d ] reach ed i t s fi n al d i s po s it i o n .” As

a res u lt

, t h e Bu re a u i n v es t i gat i o n o f O ffi cer Tal l ey rem ai n ed o p en th ro u g h t h e

d u rat i o n o f Defen d an t’ s t ri al an d Fran k ’ s t ri al fo r t h e p u rp os e o f ob t ai n i n g a s t at em en t

fro m J u d g e M aru l l o

.

J u d g e M aru l l o d id n o t di s cl o s e t o t h e p art i es i n Defen d an t ’ s cas e h i s awaren es s

o f t h e Bu reau ’ s i n t ern al i n v es t i g a t i o n o f O f f i cer Tal l ey o r t h e fact t h at h e h ad b een

q u es ti o n ed by Bu reau i n v es t ig at o rs a b o u t th e rel eas e of t h e gu n s, ev en aft er

Defen d an t fi l ed (earl y d u ri n g t h e co u rs e of h i s t ri al ) a m o t io n t o recu s e Ju d ge M aru l lo

o n o t h er g ro u n d s

. Th e i n fo rm at i o n th at t h ere w as an i nv es t ig at i o n s u rfaced d u ri n g

co -d efen d an t Fran k ’ s s u b seq u en t tri al i n co n n ect i o n wi th Offi cer Tal ley ’ s t es t i m o ny

a b ou t t h e rel eas e o f g un s fro m t h e p ro p ert y ro o m t o Fran k

. W h en Fran k ’ s c o u n s e l

rai s ed t h e p o s si b il i t y t h at J u dg e Ma r u l l o ’ s s i g n at u re o n t h e o rd er au t h o ri zi n g t h e

g u n ’ s rel eas e was a fo rg ery

, J ud g e M aru l l o reces s ed an d h el d a reco rd ed co n feren ce,

d u ri n g w h i ch J u d ge M aru ll o d i s cl os ed t h at t h ere was a Bu reau in ves t i g at i on i n t o t h e

ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h e g un ’ s rel eas e, i n cl u d in g as to t h e g en ui n en es s o f h i s s i g n at u re.

Sp eci fi cal l y , J u d ge M aru l l o s t at ed t h at h e d i d n o t recal l s i gn i n g t h e o rd er, b u t t h at

i t wo u ld h av e b e en “ p erfect ly l o g i cal an d co rrect th at [h e] wo u l d [h av e d o n e]

s o m et h in g l i k e t h a t

. ” J u dg e M aru l l o s t at ed t hat h e h ad p ro v i d ed sam p l es o f h i s

s i gn at u re t o a h an d wri ti n g e x p ert fo r co m p ari so n an d “ t h ey cam e b ack an d t o l d m e

5t h at i t was n ’ t m y si g nat u re.” 5 J u d g e M aru l l o al s o o p i n ed t h at i t ap p eared t h ere h ad

b een “ s o m e k i n d o f s y s t em i n th at p ro p ert y ro o m wh ere t h ey w ere fo rg i n g n am es to

g et g u ns o ut o f t here.” 6

Aft er t h e t ri al s o f b o t h Defen d a n t a n d Fran k

, Sg t

. Harri s on co n t act ed J u d g e

M aru l l o ag ai n

, at w h ich t i m e t h e ju d g e d ecl i ne d t o co m m en t b ecau se t h e cas es

“ wo u l d b e wi t h h i m

fo r a l o n g t i m e b ecau s e o f ap p eal s.”

In res p on s e t o t h e Bu reau i n q u i ry

, Offi cer T al l ey ack n o w l ed g ed t h at h e h el p ed

Fran k ob t ai n a 9 m

m g un fro m t h e N OPD p ro p ert y ro o m m o n t h s b efo re t h e m u rd ers ;

t h at h e h a d s p o k e n wi t h Fran k i n s i d e t h e NOPD g un v au l t d ay s b efo re th e m u rd ers

ab o ut t h e rel eas e o f ad d it i o n al weap o ns

, wh i ch wo u l d h av e affo rd ed Fran k t h e

o p p o rt u ni t y

t o rem o v e an ot h er weap o n fro m t h e v au l t wi t h o u t h i s k n o w l ed g e wh en

h e l eft h er al o ne i n t h e p ro p ert y ro o m ; an d t hat h e h ad o n ce b ef o r e h e l ped Fran k

o b t ai n an o t h er g u n f

r o m th e p ro p ert y ro om

. As to t he 9 m m gu n at i s s u e, Offi cer

Tal l ey ex p lai n ed t o Bu reau in v es t i g at o rs t h at h e “ b r o u g h t a co u rt ord er t o J u d g e

M aru l l o” t o faci l i t at e i t s rel eas e, an d “ J ud g e M aru l l o ’ s cl erk to o k

. .. i t t o t h e J u d g e’ s

ch am b ers ” an d “ ret u rn ed wi t h t h e o rd er s i gn ed b y [t h e] J u d g e.”

W h en Defen d an t learn ed t h at J u dg e M aru l lo h ad b een q u es t i o n ed du ri n g t h e

Bu reau ’ s i n v es t ig at i o n o f Offi cer Ta l l ey

, D efen dan t fi led a p ro -s e ap p l i cat i o n fo r

p o s t -co n v i ct i o n rel i ef, fo l lo w ed b y a co u n s el ed s u p p l em en t i n M ay 20 1 0

. Defen d an t

al l eg ed t hat h e was d en i ed th e ri g h t t o a fai r an d i m p art i al t ri b u n al i n t he t ri al o f h i s

cap i t al cas e i n v i o l at io n o f h i s fed eral co ns t i t u ti o n al ri g h ts

.

5 Sg t. H arrison’s r eport and s u b sequent testimony at the hearing before the Civil Service

Commission convened to e valuate Officer Talley ’ s role in the release o f the g u ns indicated that other

witnesses, but not J udg e Marullo, had supplied handwriting samples.

6 As to the admissibility of related testimony at F rank’s trial, J u dg e Marullo ruled that the p rosecutor

in F rank’s case could only elicit testimony to show that Officer Talley p r ovided a 9 mm g un to F rank

before the murders, but not as to how Officer Talley had obtained the g

un.

6Becau s e t h is i s s ue was rai s ed b y Defen d an t

, J u dg e M aru ll o w as recu s ed fro m

p res i di n g o v er t h e p o s t-co n vi ct i o n p ro ceed in g s

. Th ereaft er, a ju d g e fro m a d i fferen t

ju ri s d i ct i o n was ap po i n t ed t o pres i d e o v er Defen d an t ’ s req u es t fo r po s t-co n v i ct i o n

rel i ef. In J u n e 2 01 3

, th e t ri al co u rt h el d an ev i d en t iary h eari ng at wh ich o v er 2 0

wi t n es s es, i n cl u d in g Offi cer Tal l ey an d J u d ge M aru l l o

, t es t i fi ed

. Offi cer T al l ey ag ai n

co n ced ed h av i n g h e l p e d Fran k g et t h e 9 m m g u n

, b u t m ai n t ai n ed h e d i d n o t fo rg e

J u d g e M aru l l o ’ s s ig n at u re. Ju d g e M aru l l o tes t i fi ed t h at h e recal led b ei n g q u es t i o n ed

b y Bu reau in ves ti g at o rs

, b u t den i ed ev er s i g n i n g an o rd er t o rel eas e t h e g un

, cal l i n g

i t a “ p h o ny ” s i g n at u re. J u d g e M aru l l o tes t ifi ed t h at h e di d n o t recal l h i s s t at em en t at

t h e i n -ch am

b ers co n feren ce d u ri n g Fran k ’ s t ri al i n w h i c h h e i n d icat ed h e h ad

p ro v id ed s om eo n e wi t h h an d wri t i ng s am p l es

. Fi n al l y

, J u d g e M a r u l l o d en i ed t h at

t h es e ev en t s cau s ed h i m

t o h arb o r an y

b i as

.

On J u ly 2 3

, 2 0 1 5

, t he tri al co u rt i s su ed a 1 2 8-p ag e ju dg m en t wi t h reas o n s in

co n nect io n wi t h Defen d an t’ s pet i t i o n fo r p o s t -co n v i ct i o n rel i ef. Th e t r i a l co u rt

rejecte d D e f

e n da nt’ s c l a im r e gard i n g J u dg e M aru l lo

, o b s erv i n g t h at t h i s cas e i n v o l v es

“ a cl as s i c ex am

p l e o f ci rc u m s t a n ces an d ap p earan ces creat i n g an i n feren ce

u n s u pp o rt ed b y fact s ,” h o wev er, i t v acat ed Defen d an t’ s co n v i ct i on an d s en t en ce o n

t h e b as is o f a st ru ct ural d efect

– a ju ro r was s eat ed aft er fai l i n g t o d i scl o s e h i s l aw

en fo rcem en t ex p eri en ce. Acco rd i n g l y

, Defen d an t ’ s req ues t fo r a n ew t ri al w a s

g ran t ed

. Th e s t at e fi led a wri t ap p l i cat i o n wi th t he ap p el l at e co u rt

, as s ert i n g t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt ab us ed i t s d is cret i on i n m ak i n g fi n di n g s rel at ed t o t h e q u al i fi cat io n s o f a

ju ro r, erro rs t h e st at e u rg ed were co m p o u nd ed wh en t he t ri al co u rt i n co rrect l y ap p l i ed

t h e l aw. 7 In an o p p o s i t i o n

, Defen d an t u rg ed t h at t h e t ri al co u rt co rrect l y fo u n d a

s t ru ct u ral d efect i n t he s eat i n g o f th e ju ro r i n q u es t i o n

. He fu rt h er arg u ed t h at t h e

7 I n seeking review, the state did not ask to have the death sentences reinstated.

7o t h er cl ai m s b efo re th e t ri al co u r t a l s o h ad m eri t

. Th o s e cl ai m s in cl ud ed o n e t h at

Defen d an t “ was t ri ed b efo re a b i as ed t ri b un al .”

In a o ne-p ag e act i o n

, Defen d an t ’ s co n v i ct i o n was rei n s t at ed

, s ee Sta te v.

La Ca ze

, 1 5 -0 8 9 1 (La.Ap p

. 4 Ci r. 1 / 6 / 1 6 ) (u n p u b ’ d), o n a fi n d i n g t h e ju ro r’ s s eat i n g

was no t a s t ru ct u ral d efect

. Ad d i t i on al l y

, n o erro r was fo un d i n t h e tri al co urt ’ s

reject i o n o f Defen d an t ’ s rem ai n i n g cl ai m s

, i n cl u di n g h i s d u e p ro ces s cl ai m b as ed o n

t h e ap p earan ce o f b i as res u l t i n g f r o m J u d ge M aru l l o p res id i n g o v er t h e t ri al

. Th i s

co u rt s u b s eq u en t l y

d en i ed wri ts , i s s u i ng an o p i n i o n fi n d i ng t h at t h e co urt o f ap p eal

co rrect ly rev ers ed t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er fo r a n ew tri al an d rei n s t at ed t h e co n v i ct i o n.

Sta te v

. La Ca ze

, 1 6 -0 2 34 at 1

, 2 0 8 So .3 d at 8 5 8

. Pert i n en t h ere i s t hi s co u rt ’ s rev i ew

o f Defen d an t ’ s d u e p ro ces s cl ai m co n cern i n g J ud g e M aru ll o

, wh i ch was b as ed o n : (1 )

t h e al l eg at i o n t h at “

N O PD In ves t i g at ed J u dg e M aru l l o as t he So u rce of th e 9 m m

Beret t a M u rd er W eap on Du ri n g t h e Pen d en cy o f th es e Pro ceed i n g s” an d (2 ) “ J u d g e

M aru l l o’ s In v ol vem en t i n t h e [Bu reau ] In v e s t i g at i o n M an d at ed Hi s Recu s al .” In

an al y zi ng Defen d an t ’ s cl ai m

, t h i s co u rt n o t ed t h e p res u m p ti on o f i m

p art i al i t y i n fav o r

o f a t ri al ju d ge. La Ca ze

, 1 6-0 23 4 at 1 0

, 2 0 8 So .3 d at 8 6 4

. Aft er reco g n izi n g t h at a

ju d g e in a cri m i n al cas e sh al l b e recu s ed u n d e r La

. C .Cr.P. art

. 6 7 1 (A)(1 ) i f h e i s

“ b i as ed

, p reju d iced

, o r p ers o n al l y i n t eres t ed i n th e cau s e t o s u ch an ex t en t t h at h e

wo u l d b e u n ab l e t o co n d u ct a fai r an d i m p art ial t ri al ” an d u n d er L a. C.Cr.P. art

.

6 7 1 (A)(6 ) i f h e “ [w] o u l d b e u n ab l e, fo r an y o t h e r reas on

, t o co nd u ct a fai r an d

i m p art i al t ri al ,” t h i s co u rt o bs erv ed t h at Art i cl e 67 1 “ u n d e r s c o r es a j u d ge’ s d u t y to

av o id ev en t h e ap p earan ce o f i m p ro p ri et y .” La Ca ze

, 1 6-0 2 3 4 at 10

, 2 0 8 So .3 d at

8 6 4

.

Th i s co u rt fu rt h er fo und tha t Judge M a ru l l o ’ s p o s s i b le co n n ect i o n t o t h e rel eas e

o f a g u n t o Fran k i s i n s u ffi ci en t t o s h o w t h at J u dg e M ar u l l o “ h arb o red an y b i as

,

8p reju d i ce, o r p ers o n al i n teres t in t h e cas e, l et al o n e t o s u ch an ex t en t t hat i t ren d ered

h i m u nab l e t o co n du ct a fai r t ri al .” I d

. Aft er fi n d i ng l ack o f p ro of o f act u al b i as

, t h i s

co u rt fu rt h er fo u n d t h at ev i d en c e r e l a t e d t o J u d g e M aru l l o b ei n g q u es ti o n ed i n t h e

Bu reau ’ s i n t ern al i n v es t i g at io n o f Offi cer Tal ley was i n s u ffi ci en t t o sh o w t h at J u d g e

M aru l l o wo u l d b e u n ab l e t o co n d u ct a fai r t ri al fo r s o m e o t her reas o n

. See La Ca ze

,

1 6 -0 23 4 at 1 0 -1 1

, 2 08 So

. 3 d at 8 6 4 (ci t i n g La. C.Cr.P. art

. 6 7 1 (A)(6 ), q u o t ed i n f r a ).

Defen d an t ’ s arg u m en t t h at J u d g e M aru l l o ’ s i n i t i al p art i ci p at io n i n t h e i n t ern al

i n v es t i g at i o n o f Offi cer Tal l ey cau sed h i m t o b eco m e en t an g l ed i n t h e fact s at i s s u e

i n D efen d an t ’ s cas e was reject ed b y t h i s co u rt

. Th e m ean s b y wh ich t h e m u r d e r

weap o n was p ro cu red

, i.e

., wh et h er Fra n k had o b t ai n ed i t p u rs uan t to a g en u i n e o r

“ b o g u s ” co u rt o rd er, di d no t p ert ai n t o an y o f t h e i s s u es at D efen dan t ’ s t ri al

. S e e

La Ca ze

, 1 6-0 2 3 4 at 1 1

, 2 0 8 S o .3 d at 8 6 4

. Fu rt h erm o re, t h i s co u rt h el d t h at J u d g e

M aru l l o’ s po ss i b l e i n v o lv em en t i n t h e ad m i n is trat i v e rel eas e o f a g u n d i d n o t “ h av e

a t en d en cy to m ak e t h e ex i s t en ce o f an y fact o f co n s eq uen ce [ ] m o re o r l es s

p ro b ab l e,” an d was th u s i n s u ffi ci en t t o reb u t t h e pres u m p ti o n o f i m

p art i al i t y affo rd ed

t o ju d g es . See i d

.

Su b s eq uen t l y

, t h e Un i ted St at es Su p rem e Co u rt i n Ri ppo v

. Ba k er

, 1 3 7 S.Ct

.

9 0 5 (2 0 1 7), cl ari fi ed t h e s tan d ard fo r ju di ci al di sq u al ifi cat i o n in cri m i n al cas es u n d er

t h e fed eral d ue p ro ces s cl au s e. Bas ed o n th is cl ari fi cat i o n

, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt g ran t ed

Defen d an t ’ s p et i t i o n fo r wri t o f cert i o rari

, v a c a t ed th i s co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n i n La Ca ze

(2 0 8 So .3 d 8 5 6 ), an d rem an d ed t h e m at t er t o t h i s co u rt fo r fu rt h er co n s i d e r a t i o n o f

t h i s i s s u e. La Ca ze v . Lo ui s ia na , 1 38 S.Ct . 6 0 (2 0 1 7 ).

DI SCUSSI ON

Th e Du e Pro ces s Cl au se o f t h e Un it ed St at es Co n s t i t u t i o n req u i res “ a fai r t ri al

i n a fai r t ri bu n al ,” b efo re a ju d g e wi t h n o b i as o r in teres t i n t h e o u t co m e. Bra cy v.

9Gra m ley , 5 20 U.S. 8 9 9

, 9 0 4 -0 5 (1 9 9 7 ) (q uo t in g W i thro w v

. La rk in

, 4 2 1 U.S. 3 5,

4 6 (1 9 7 5 )). Lo u i s ian a co u rt s h av e gen eral l y req u i red cri m i n al d efen d an t s t o p res en t

ev i d en ce o f act u al b ias t o ob t ai n rel i ef b as ed o n a ju d g e’ s fai l u r e t o r e cu s e. 8 Th e

Su p rem e Co urt ’ s i n t erv en ti on i n Ri ppo

, an d ag ai n i n th i s cas e, ho wev er, d i rect s t h at

recu s al m ay

b e req u i red ev en wh ere p ro o f o f act u al b i as i s l ack i n g

.

In rem an d i n g fo r reco n s i d erat i o n h ere, t h e Su p rem e Co urt referen ced i t s recen t

d e c i s i o n i n Ri ppo

, i n wh ich i t cl ari fi ed t h e j u d ici al d i s q u al i fi cat i o n st an d ard i n t h e

co n tex t o f t h e fed era l c o n s t i t u t i o n al ri g ht t o d u e p ro ces s. See Ri ppo

, 1 3 7 S.Ct

. at

9 0 7

. Du ri n g h i s t ri al

, t h e d efen dan t in R i ppo recei v ed i n fo rm at i o n i n d i cat i n g t h at t h e

p res i di n g ju d g e was a t arg et o f a fed eral b ri bery p ro b e. I d

. at 9 0 6

. Fro m t h i s

, t h e

d efen d an t s u rm i s ed t h at t h e s am e d i s t ri ct at t orn ey ’ s o ffi ce t h at was p ro s ecu t i n g h i m

was al s o i n v es t i g at in g t he ju dg e. Th e defen d an t u n s ucces s fu l l y m o v ed fo r t h e t ri al

ju d g e’ s recu sal u n d er t he t h eo ry t h at t he ju d g e co u ld n ot rem ai n i m p art i al i n a m at t er

i n wh i ch o n e o f t h e p art i es b efo re hi m was act i v el y in v es ti g at i n g h i m fo r cri m i n al

wro ng d o i n g

. I

d

.

Hav i n g fai l ed t o m a k e h i s cas e o n d i rect rev i ew, t h e d efen d an t in Ri ppo

rev i s it ed t h e i s s u e p o s t -co n v ict i o n

, t h i s ti m e o fferi n g reco rd s fro m t h e t ri al ju d g e’ s

s u b s eq u en t cri m i n a l p ro s ecu t i o n t h at es t ab l i s h ed t h e s am e d i s t ri ct at t o rn ey ’ s o ffi ce

t h at p ro s ecu ted t h e defen d an t had , as h e s u s p ect ed , b een co ncu rren t l y i n v es t i g at i n g

t h e t ri al ju d g e. Id

. Th e s tat e co u rt s i n Ri ppo ag ai n reject ed t h e d efen d an t ’ s cl ai m

,

d en y i n g t h e d efen d an t t h e o p p ort u ni t y fo r “ d is co v ery o r an ev id en t i ary h eari n g [o n

8 See, e.g

. , State In Interest of M

. J.

, 14-0622, p

. 26 ( L a.App. 4 Cir. 2/4/15), 160 So.3d 1040, 1055,

writ denied, 15-0487 (L a. 1/15/16), 184 So.3d 704 (rejecting recusal a r gu m e n t b ecause juvenile

defendant p ointed to nothing “ that would support a finding of a ct u a l b i as or prejudice”); State v.

Dolem an

, 02-0957, p. 10 ( L a .App. 4 Cir. 1 2/4/02), 8 3 5 So.2d 850, 858, writ d enied, 02-3101 (L a.

9/19/03), 853 So.2d 633 (finding no evidence of actual bias); State v

. Taylor

, 07-93, p. 11 (L a.App.

5 C i r. 1 1/27/07), 973 So.2d 83, 92, writ denied, 07-2454 (L a. 5/9/08), 980 So.2d 688 ( finding no

evidence of actual bias).

10t h e recu s al i s s u e] b ecau s e h i s al l eg at i on s ‘ [d ] id n o t s u p p o rt t h e as sert i o n t hat t h e t ri al

ju d g e was act u al l y b i as ed i n [t h e d efen d an t’ s ] cas e.’ ” Id

. , at 9 0 6 -0 7 (q u o t in g Ri ppo

v . Sta te , 3 6 8 P.3 d 7 2 9

, 7 4 4 (Nev . 2 0 1 6 )).

Fro m t h e den i al o f h i s req u es t fo r p o s t -co n vi ct i o n rel ief b y t h e st at e co u rt s

, t h e

d efen d an t fi l ed a p et i t i o n fo r wri t o f cert i o rari

. In ev al uat i ng t h e s t at e co urt ju d g m en t

i n R i p p o

, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h el d t h at ev i d en ce o f act u al bi as is n ot neces s ary t o

req u i re recu s al

. See i d

. , 1 37 S.Ct

. at 90 7 (ci t in g A etna Li fe I ns

. Co

. v

. La v o i e

, 4 7 5

U.S. 8 1 3

, 8 2 5 (1 9 8 6 )). Th e Co u rt cl ari fi ed t h at t h e i n q u i ry fo r ju d i ci al

d i s q u al i fi cat i o n i s i n st ead wh et h er, “ o b ject i v el y s p eak i n g

, ‘ th e p ro b ab i l i t y of act u al

b i as o n t h e p art of t h e ju d g e o r deci s i o nm ak er i s t o o h i g h t o b e co ns t i t u t i o n al l y

t o l erab l e’ ” u n der t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

. Id

. (q u o ti n g W i thro w

, 4 2 1 U.S. at 4 7 ); s ee

Ca perto n v

. A.T. Ma s s ey Co a l Co

., I nc.

, 5 5 6 U.S. 8 6 8

, 8 8 9 -9 0 (2 00 9 ). In ap p l y i n g

t h i s st an d ard

, t h e co u rt m u s t d et erm in e “ wh et h er, as an o b ject i v e m at t er, th e av erag e

ju d g e i n h i s p o s it i o n i s l i kel y t o b e n eu t ral

, o r w h e t h e r t h ere i s an u n co n s t i t u t i o n al

p o t en t i al fo r b i as .” Ri ppo , 1 37 S.Ct . 9 0 7 (q u o t i ng W i l l i a m s v

. Penns y l v a ni a , 1 3 6

S.Ct

. 1 8 9 9

, 1 9 0 5 (2 0 16 )). Acco rd i n g l y

, t h e s tat e s u p rem e co u rt ’ s d eci s io n i n Ri ppo

,

wh i ch affi rm ed th e t ri al co u rt ’ s reject i o n o f t h e d efen d an t ’ s recu s al cl ai m b as ed o n

l ack o f p ro o f o f act u al b ias

, was v acat ed

, an d t h e cas e was rem an d ed t o t h e s t a t e

s u p rem e co u rt fo r fu rt h er co n s i d erat i o n o f Defen d an t ’ s fed eral d u e p ro ces s cl ai m

u n d er t h e cl ari fi ed s t an d ard

. I d

. No t ab l y

, t h e Su p rem e Co urt i n Ri ppo d i d n o t fi n d

t h at t h e d efen dan t was en t i tl ed t o s u b s t an ti v e rel i ef, b u t in s t ead s i m p l y cl ari fi ed t h e

fed eral s tan d ard t o b e ap p l i ed b y t h e s t at e su p rem e co u rt o n rem an d

. On rem an d

, t h e

s t at e s u p rem e “ co u rt i s free t o d et erm i n e wh et h er i t s ori g i n al d eci s i o n i s s t i l l co rrect

i n l i g h t o f t h e [cl ari fi ed s t an d ard ] o r wh et h er a d i fferen t res u lt i s m o re ap p ro p ri at e.”

11See Kenem o re v. Ro y

, 6 9 0 F.3 d 6 3 9

, 64 2 (5 t h Ci r. 2 0 12 ), cert

. d en i ed

, 1 3 3 S.Ct

. 8 8 9

(2 0 1 3). 9

In li g h t of t h e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s rem an d

, t h i s co u rt

, l i ke t h e st at e s u p rem e co u rt

i n Ri ppo

, i s n o w cal l ed o n t o d eci d e wh et her t he o ri g i n a l d e c i s io n i n La Ca ze

,

1 6 -0 23 4

, 2 08 So

. 3 d 8 5 6, i s co rrect i n l i g h t o f t h e cl ari fi ed st an d ard

. As a b as i s fo r h i s

fed eral d ue p ro ces s cl ai m , Defen d an t rel i es o n t h e fo l l o wi n g fact s :

• NOPD co n d u ct ed an i n t ern al i n v es ti gat i o n i nt o Offi cer Tal l ey ’ s rel eas e

t o Fran k

, t h en an NOPD o ffi cer, o f t wo g u n s fro m t h e p r o p e rt y ro o m

,

o ne o f wh i ch

, a 9 m

m rel eas ed i n Au g u s t 1 9 9 4

, co u ld h av e b een u s ed in

t h e M arch 1 9 9 5 m

u rd ers

.

• Bu reau in v es t i g at o rs fo u n d t h at Offi cer Tal l ey ’ s rel eas e o f th e 9 m m g u n

h ad i n v o l ved t h e u s e o f a rel eas e o rd er pu rp o rt ed l y s i g ned b y J u d g e

M aru l l o , wh i ch Offi cer Tal l ey m ai n tai n ed was au t h en t ic.

• W h en as k ed t o rev i ew t h e o rd er, J u d g e M aru l l o t o l d t h e Bu reau

i n v es t ig at o r t h at h e d i d n o t b el i ev e t h e s ig n at ure was au th en t i c.

• Defen d an t ’ s cas e w as al lo tte d to Judge M a ru l lo ’ s co u rt ro o m

, aft er wh i ch

h e d ecl i n ed

, wh en as k ed

, t o m ak e fu rt h er s tat em en t s t o t h e in v es t i g at o r

wh i l e t h e cas e rem ai n ed o p en

.

• J u d g e Maru l l o d i d n o t d i s cl os e to t h e p art i es hi s s t at em en t t o t h e Bu reau

i n v es t ig at o r o r h i s k n o wl ed g e o f t h e i n v es t i g at i o n i t sel f.

Defen d an t m ai nt ai n s t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces are p reci s el y t h e s o rt o f e x t rem e

ci rcu m s t an ces th at g i v e ri s e t o a fed eral d u e p r o c e s s v i ol at i o n

, creat i n g an

u n co ns t it u t i o n al ap p earan ce o f i m p ro p ri et y or b ias

. In s up p ort of h is arg u m en t

,

Defen d an t rel i es s u b st an t i al l y o n Li l jeberg v

. Hea lth Serv i ces Acqui s i ti o n Co rp.

,

4 8 6 U .S. 84 7 (1 9 8 8 ), w h ich i n v o l v ed a t ri al ju d g e’ s fai lu re t o p ro v i d e a fu l l d i s cl o s u re

o f rel ev an t fact s i n v i ol at i o n o f a fed eral s t at u t e req u i ri n g d i s q u al i fi cat i o n o f a fed eral

ju d g e i f “ h e, in di v i d u al l y o r as a fi d u ci ary

, o r h i s s p ou s e o r m i n o r ch il d res i d in g i n h i s

h o u s eh o l d

, h as a fi n a n c i al i n t eres t i n t h e s u b ject m at t er i n co nt ro v ers y o r in a p art y

t o t h e p ro ceed i n g

, or an y o t h er i n teres t t h a t c o u l d b e s u bs t an ti al l y affect ed b y t h e

o u t co m e o f t h e p ro ceed i n g.” I d

. at 8 58 -5 9 (q u ot i n g 2 8 U.S.C. § 4 5 5 (b )).

9 See also F low ers v. Mississippi

, 136 S.Ct. 2157, 2 157-58 ( 2016) (Alito, Thomas, J J

., dissenting );

Diaz v. Stephens , 731 F

. 3d 370, 378 (5 t h Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 48 (2013).

12C i ti n g Li l jeberg

, Defen d an t s t at es t h at n o n di s cl o s ure i s a “ fact [] t h at m i g h t

reas on ab l y cau s e an o b

ject i v e o b s erv er t o q ues t i o n [a ju d g e’ s ] i m part ial i t y .” See i d

.

at 8 6 5

. Fo r t h i s reas o n , Defen d an t u rg es t h at , u n der Li l jeberg , fed eral d u e p ro ces s

req u i res t h at th e ju d g e m ak e fu l l d i s cl o s ure o f k n o wn fact s t h at m i g h t b e rel ev an t to

an a p p e a r a n c e o f b i as t o co m p l et el y rem o v e an y b as is fo r q u es ti o n i n g t h e ju d g e’ s

i m p art i al i t y

. See id

. at 8 6 6

. Acco rd i n g t o Defen d an t

, t h e ab sen ce o f fu ll d i s cl o s u re

g i v es ri s e t o an u n co n s t i t u t i o n al p o t en t i al fo r b i as

.

No t ab l y

, La. Co de o f Ju d i ci al Co n du ct

, Can o n 2 req u i res t h at : “ A J u d g e

...

Av o i d Im p ro p ri et y an d th e Ap p earan c e o f I m p ro p ri et y i n Al l Act i v i t ies ,” an d La.

C.Cr.P. art

. 6 7 1

, wh i ch l i s t s t he g ro u n d s fo r recu s al

, 1 0 req u i res recu s al i f a j u d g e i s a

wi t n es s i n t h e cau s e an d u n d ers co res t h e du t y t o av o i d ev en t h e a p p e a r an ce o f

i m p ro p ri et y

. See Sta te v

. LeBl a nc

, 3 6 7 So

. 2 d 33 5

, 3 4 1 (La. 1 9 7 9 ) (“ [T] h e

ap p earan ce o f i m

p art i al i t y

, as wel l as i m

part ial i t y i t s el f, ou t wei g h s t he i n co n v en i en ce

cau s ed b y t h e recu s al o f t he t ri al ju d g e.”

Ev en if Defen d an t h as i d en t i fi ed a po t en ti al v i o l at io n o f s t at e l aw o r t he ju d i ci al

can o ns i n J u d g e M aru l l o’ s fai l u re t o di s cl o s e, s uch a v i o l at i on i s al o n e in su ffi ci en t

1 0 L ouisiana C.Cr.P. art. 671 (A) provides:

I n a criminal case a judg e of any c ourt, t rial or appellate, shall be recused

when he:

(1) I s biased, prejudiced, or personally interested in the cause to such an

ex tent that he would be unab le to conduct a fair and impartial trial;

(2) I s the spouse of the accused, o f the party injured, o f a n attorney

employ ed in the cause, or of the district a ttorney ; or is related to the accused or the

party injured, or to the spouse of the accused or party i n j u r e d

, within the fourth

deg ree; or is r elated to an attorney employ ed in the cause or to the district attorney

, or to the spouse of either, within the second deg ree;

(3) Has been employ ed o r c onsulted as an attorney i n the cause, or has

been associated with an attorney during the latter’s employ ment in the cause;

(4) I s a witness in the cause;

(5) Has performed a judicial act in the case in another court; or

(6) W ould be unable, for any other reason, to conduct a fair a nd impartial

trial.

13t o warran t a new t ri al i n t hi s cas e. Si m i l arl y

, as i n d i cat ed i n Ca perto n

, ci rcu m s t an ces

t h at ru n afo u l o f st a t e l a w or ju d i ci al can o n s d o n o t n eces s ari l y v i o l at e fed eral d u e

p ro ces s

, wh ich i s t h e i s su e cu rren t l y b e f o r e t hi s co u rt

. 1 1 No n et h el es s

, s t at e l aw o r

ju d i ci al can o n co n s i d erat io ns m ay b e rel ev an t t o t h e d et erm i n at i o n o f wh et her J u d g e

M aru l l o i s s u b

ject t o d is q ual i fi cat i o n u n der t he Ri ppo s tan d ard

.

A ju d i ci al d i s q u al i fi cat i o n u n der th e D u e Pro ces s Cl au s e fi rs t req u i res t h at an

o b ject i ve “ pro b ab i l i t y o f act u al b i as ” be es t ab l is h ed

. Th u s, th e s t at e co rrect l y n o t es

t h at p ro o f o f an ap pearan ce o f b i as al o n e i s i n s u ffi ci en t t o s h o w a v i o l at i o n o f fed eral

d u e p ro ces s. 1 2 Th e R i ppo st an d ard cl earl y req u ires p ro o f t h at an ap p earan ce o f b i as

g i v es ri s e t o a “ p r o b a b i l i t y o f act u al b i as ,” al s o referred to as a “ ri s k o f b i as ” o r

“ p o t en t ial fo r bi as .” 1 3 See Ri ppo

, 1 3 7 S.Ct

. at 9 0 7

. S e c o n dl y

, t h e d efen dan t m u s t

p ro v e t h at t h e p ro b ab i li t y o f act u al b i as ri s es to a lev e l t h a t “ i s t o o h ig h t o b e

co n st i t u t io n al l y

t o l erab l e” u n d er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces . See i d

.

1 1 See Caperton

, 556 U.S. at 889-90 (states may “adopt recusal standards more rig orous than due

process r e quires;” federal “D u e Process Clause demarks only the outer boundaries of judicial

disqualifications,” and leaves it to the leg islature and the states to “ impose more rig orous standards”

for judicial disqualification); Bracy

, 520 U.S. at 904 (disting uishing the “constitutional floor” from

the ceiling set “by common law, statute, or the professional standards o f the bench and b ar”). See,

e

. g.

, Pe o p l e v. F reem an

, 222 P.3d 177, 1 78 (apply ing Caperton and f

inding an appearance of

impropriety

, as proscribed under California law, is not enoug h to warrant judicial d isqualification

under the federal standar d : “ wh i l e a showing of a ctual bias is not required for judicial

disqualification under the due process clause, neither is t h e m e r e ap p earance of bias sufficient.

I nstead, b ased on a

n objective assessment of the circumstances in the p articular case, there must ex ist

... ‘the probability of actual bias on the part o f the ju d ge o r d ecisionmaker [ that] is too hig h to be

constitutionally

tolerable.’”).

1 2 “The Supreme Court has never rested the vaunted p r inciple of due process on something as

subjective and transitory as appearance.” Del Vecc h i o v

. Illinois Dept. of Corrections

, 31 F .3d

1363, 1 371-72 (7 t h Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1037 (1994). Liljeberg

, which involved the

application of a federal statute in the disqualification determination, n either holds nor sug g ests that

“an appearance o f bias on the part of a federal judg e, without more, violates t h e D u e P r o cess

Clause.” Johnson v. Carroll

, 369 F .3d 253, 262 (3 r d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 9 24 (2005).

1 3 “[ I ] n the absence o f any possibility of actual b ias–that is, based solely on h ow the situation mig ht

have ‘appeared’ to a

n outside observer

... [t] he Supreme Court has never held, or even intimated, that

the due process clause requires recusal.” Suh v. P ierce

, 630 F .3d 685, 692 (7 t h Cir. 2011).

14Defen d an t su g g es t s (rel y i n g o n T um ey v

. Sta te o f Ohi o

, 2 7 3 U.S. 5 1 0

, 5 3 5

(1 9 2 7), in wh i ch t h e ju dg e h ad a d i rect

, s u b s t an t i al p ecu n iary i n t eres t i n th e o u t co m e

o f t he d efen d an t ’ s cas e) t h at ev en a s m al l pro b ab i l i t y o f b ias o n t h e p art o f t he p ers o n

wh o i s s u p p o s ed t o b e t h e n eu t ral ad ju d i cat o r, h ere J u dg e Maru l lo

, o ffen d s d u e

p ro ces s

. Su ch a t es t i s i n co n si s t en t w i t h t h e wo rd in g o f t h e Ri ppo s t an dar d an d

wo u l d ren d er t h e “ t o o h i g h t o be co n s t i t ut i o n al ly t o l e r a b l e ” po rt i o n o f t h e s t an d ard

ex t ran eo u s

. Un d er th e st an d ard

, p ro o f o f an y p ro b ab i l i t y o f b i as al on e i s i ns u ffi ci en t

.

No t ab l y

, t h e ju r i s p r u d en ce d o es n o t in d icat e t hat p ro o f of n on d i s cl os u re o f

i n fo rm at i o n gi v i n g ri s e t o an y pr oba bility of bia s a

ut o m at i cal ly ren d ers t h e p ro b ab i l i t y

o f b i as “ t o o h i g h t o b e co n s t i tu t i o n al l y t o l erab l e.”

Th e ju ri s p ru d en ce rev eal s t h at an un co n s ti t u t io n al p r o b a b i l i t y o f b i as ex i s t s

wh en :

• Th e ju dg e h as a d i rect

, s u b s t an ti al p ecu n i ary i n t eres t i n t h e o u t co m e o f

t h e d efen dan t ’ s cas e, 1 4

• t h e ju d g e’ s el ec t i o n cam p ai g n recei v ed ex cep t i o n al ly l arg e fi n an ci al

d on at i o n s fro m

o ne o f t h e p art i es

, 1 5

• t h e s en t en ci n g ju d g e f o r m erl y wo rk ed as a p ro secu t o r i n an o t h er cas e

ag ai n s t t h e d efen d an t an d th e ju d g e h ad earl i er “ co m m u n i cat i o n,

co rres p o n d en ce, an d co o p erat i on as a pro s ecu t or” wi t h th e p ro s ecu t o r

i n t h e o t h er cas e ag ai ns t t h e d efen d an t

, 1 6

• t h e ju d g e “ p res id i n g at t h e co n t em p t h eari n g h ad al s o s erv ed as t h e ‘ o n em an g ran d ju ry ’ o u t o f wh ich t h e co n t em p t ch arg es aro se,” 1 7

• t h e j u d g e h as m ad e a cri t i cal deci s i o n (ap pro v ed of s eek i n g t h e d eat h

p en al t y ) wh i le a fo rm er p ro s ecu t or i n t h e p en d i n g p ro s ecu t i on

, 1 8

• t h e ap pel l at e ju d g e p res i d ed o v er t h e t ri al o f t h e m at t er, 1 9

1 4 See Tum ey , 273 U.S. at 523, 535; Aetna Lif e Insurance Co.

, 475 U.S. at 822, 824 (the judg e

was involved as a party

in a separate, but similar, lawsuit).

1 5 See Caperton , 556 U.S. at 884.

1 6 See Sm ith v. State , 357 S.W

. 3d 322, 345 (Tenn. 2011), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 828 (2012).

1 7 See In re Murchison , 349 U.S. 133, 134, 138-39 (1955).

1 8 See W illiam s

, 136 S.Ct. at 1905 (applied the Caperton standard for judicial d isqualification and

found that no person can serve “as both accuser and adjudicator in a case.”).

1 9 See P e ople v. Novak

, 88 N.E.3d 305, 307 (N.Y. 2017).

15• t h e ju d g e h as t ak en b ri b es fro m o t h er cri m in al d efen d an t s

, 2 0

• t h e ju d g e h as b o t h ex ecu t i v e an d ju di ci al res p o n si b i l i t y i n t h e m at t er, 2 1

an d

• t h e ju d g e was a d efen d an t i n p ri o r l i t i g a t i on i n vo l v i n g o n e o f t h e

p art i es

. 2 2

No n e o f t h e s e ri s k s i s p res en t i n t h e i n s tan t cas e. J u d g e M aru ll o d i d n o t h av e a

p ecu ni ary i n t eres t i n Defen d an t ’ s cas e. He h ad n o p ro s ecu t o ri al i n vo l v em en t wi t h t h e

Defen d an t o r i n t h is m at t er. He d i d no t h av e an u naccep t ab l e rel at i o ns h i p wi th

Defen d an t o r t h e p ro s ecu t o rs

. He h ad n o reas o n t o fear cri m i n al p ro s ecu t i o n in

co n nect io n wi t h t h e rel eas e o f t h e g u n t o Fran k

.

J u d g e M aru l l o’ s co m

m u n i cat i o n an d i n i t i al co op erat i o n i n t he Bu reau

i n v es t i g at i o n i nt o h o w t he 9 m m g un was rel eas ed was n o t ad v ers ari al o r accu s at o ry

t o wa r d D e f

e n d an t. Si g n i fi can tl y

, an d m o s t i m p o rt an tl y

, i t was O ffi cer Tal l ey

, n ot

J u d g e M aru l l o

, wh o was t h e s ub ject o f t h e Bu reau ’ s i n v es t i g at i o n . Co n t rary t o an y

p ri o r rep res en t at i o n s t o t h e co u rt s

, t here i s ab s o l u t el y n o ev i den ce i n t h e reco rd t h at

J u d g e M aru l l o was un d er in ves ti g at io n h i m s el f fo r an y o f t h es e ev en t s

. Ev en i f J u d g e

M aru l l o, i n fact

, s i g n ed th e o rd er t hat au t h o ri zed rel eas e o f t h e 9 m m g un t o Fran k,

J u d g e M aru l l o d i d n o t h i n g wro n g ; he was m erel y p erfo rm i n g a m i ni s t eri al act t h at h e

was fu l l y au t h ori zed t o p erfo rm

.

Th e d efen s e’ s t heo ry at t ri al was t h at Defe n d an t d i d n o t part ici p at e i n t h e

h o m i ci d e, b u t b el i ev ed t h at Fran k had p lan n ed an d co m m it t ed th e m

u rd ers wi t h h er

2 0 See Bracy

, 520 U.S. at 900-01, 909 (the judg e’s subsequent c onviction for a ccepting bribes from

defendants in criminal cases was sufficient proof to afford discovery o n h is claim of actual judicial

bias in his case–judg e had an interest in the defendant’s conviction).

2 1 See Ward v. Village of Monroeville, Ohio

, 409 U.S. 57, 6 1-62 (1972) (where the may or before

whom petitioner was c o mpelled to stand trial for traffic offenses was responsible f o r v i l l a g e finances,

an d may or’s court throug h fines, forfeitures, costs and fees, provided a substantial portion of the

villag e funds, petitioner was denied a trial b efore a disintere s t e d a n d i mpartial judicial officer as

g uaranteed by

the due process clause).

2 2 See Johnson v Mississippi , 403 U.S. 212, 215-16 (1971).

16b ro t h er, A d am Fran k

, aft er o bt ai n i n g a 9 m m g u n fro m t h e p o li ce p ro p ert y ro o m

. In

s u p p ort o f t h is t h eo ry

, Defen d an t t es t i fi ed t hat Fran k t o l d Defen d an t th at s h e ex p ect ed

t o g et a weap o n fro m t h e p ro p ert y ro o m

. Acco rd in g to Defen d an t, s t at e l aw req u i res

J u d g e M aru l l o ’ s recu sal s i n ce h e co u l d h av e b een cal led as a wi tn es s at Defen d an t ’ s

t ri al to co rro b orat e th e Defen d an t ’ s t es t i m on y t h at Fran k p ro cu red a 9 m m g u n fro m

a fri en d i n t h e N OPD p ro pert y ro o m t o co m m i t th e cri m e. Ho w ev er, J u d g e M aru l lo

d i d n o t h av e p ers on al k n o w l ed g e o r d i rect ev i d en ce o f t h e act i o n s o f Offi cer Tal l ey

o r Fran k

. J u d g e M aru l l o i s n o t al l eg ed t o h av e had an y d i rect co n t act wi t h Offi cer

Tal l ey o r Fran k i n co n nect i o n wi t h t h e rel eas e o f t h e 9 m m g u n. Ju d ge Maru l l o o n l y

k n o ws wh at he was t o l d by t h e Bu reau i n v es t i g at o r a n d wh at was v i si b l e fro m t h e

face o f t h e o rd er, wh i ch h e b el i ev e s w a s f o rg ed

. Th ere i s n o i n d icat i o n t h at J u d g e

M aru l l o h eard o f Offi cer Tal l ey ’ s acco u n t o f t he g un rel eas e un t i l Offi cer Tal l ey l at er

ap p eared an d t es t i fi ed at Fran k ’ s t ri al

. If, i n fact

, J u d g e Maru l l o d i d n o t s i g n t h e

o rd er, h e h as n o d i rect k n owl ed g e o f t h e rel eas e o f t he 9 m m g u n an d wo u l d n o t b e

i n a p o s i t i o n t o co rro b o rat e Defen d an t ’ s t es t i m o n y

. Ev en i f J u d g e Maru l l o h ad

p ers o n al k no wl ed g e o f i n fo rm at i o n t h at m i g ht b e co rro b orat i v e, s u ch in fo rm at i o n i s

n eu tral i n t h e s en s e t h at i t d o es n o t ai d ei t h er p art y

. If at al l h el pfu l

, i t wo ul d b e m o re

co rro b o rat iv e o f t he st at e’ s “ ev i d en ce t h at hi s acco m p l i ce o bt ai n ed t h e s am e t y p e o f

g u n t h at was u s ed t o ki l l t he vi ct i m s

, i n a cas e i n w h i ch th e st at e pres en t ed ev i d en ce

t h at h e an d F r a n k h ad b een act i n g i n co n cert u n d er t h e g u i s e of h er au t h o ri t y an d,

t o g et h er, p rem ed i t at ed t h e m urd ers an d were eq u al ly cu l p ab l e.” L a C a z e

, 1 6 -0 2 3 4

at 1 2 , 2 0 8 So .3 d at 8 65 (fo o t n o t e o m i t t ed ).

Al t h ou g h i t i s p o s s ib le t h at t h e 9 m m g u n rel eas ed fro m

t he p ro p ert y

ro o m to

Fran k p u rs u an t t o t h e o r d er p u rp ort ed l y s i g n ed by J u d g e Maru l lo was u s ed i n t h e

17m

u rd ers at t h e Ki m An h res t au ran t

, t h at fact h as n ev er b een defi n i t i v el y es t ab l i s h ed

. 2 3

Th e fact t h at Fran k g o t a 9 m m g u n fro m t he p ro p ert y ro o m d o e s n o t e x c u l p at e

D e fen d an t

, es p eci al l y i n li g h t o f t h e ab un d an t ev i den ce of h i s g u il t

. 2 4 Th at Fran k

m i g h t h av e o n ce p o s s es s ed t h e 9 m m g un t h at was u s ed t o k i l l Offi cer W i l l i am s an d

t h e V u si b l in gs d oes n o t o v erco m e t h e ev i d en ce t h at s h o wed Defen d an t was t h e o n e

wh o p os s es s ed t h e m

u r d e r weap o n wh en Offi cer W i l l i am s was s h ot

. See La Ca ze

,

9 9 -0 58 4 at 2 -4

, 8 2 4 So .2 d a t 1 0 6 6 -6 7

. 2 5 Fu rt herm o re, co n trary t o Defen d an t ’ s

s u g g es t i o n

, t h e fact s d o n o t in d i cat e t hat J u dg e M aru ll o was try i n g t o co n ceal t h e

i n fo rm at i o n i n q ues ti o n fro m Defen d a n t d u r in g Defen d an t ’ s t ri al o r t h at J u d g e

M aru l l o t h o ug h t th i s i n fo rm at i o n wo u l d h arm o r hel p Defen d an t ’ s d efen s e.

2 3 As indicated, a 9 mm g un with a partial serial number tha t m a t c h ed t h e o n e released from the

property and evidence room to F rank was found in the possession of F rank’s brother (Adam) three

y ears after Defendant and F rank were convicted. That g un could h ave b een used in the murders of

Officer W illiams and the Vu sibling s and thereafter been handed off to F rank’s brother Adam.

2 4 The trial judg e, who was sitting ad hoc to preside over the p ost-conviction hearing

, weig hed the

evidence and rejected Defendant’s theory of innocence, noting the w eakness of his evidence: “the

state presented evidence that [ Defendant] accompanied F rank to W almart to shop for 9 mm

ammunition within hours of the murders; that survivors (who saw [ Defendant] wit h Fr a n k t wice

earlier that same e v e n ing ) positively identified [ D efendant] as the male perpetrator who rummag ed

t hroug h their property after the g unfire ceased; that [ Defendant’s] initial statements contained detail s

only the perpetrators c o uld have k nown; that [ Defendant’s] trial testimony admitted h is presence in

the restaurant earlier that n ig ht, c ontradicting his alibi in which he claimed he was at the pool hall;

and that [Defendant] was observed within an hour of the murders using Ofc. W illiams’s stolen credit

card to purchase g as at a Chevron station near his brother’s apartment.” LaCaze

, 16-0234 at 17, 208

So.3d at 868. The d ifferences in their appearance made it nearly impossible, e v e n under the

circumstances, for the survivors to have confused Defendant, who “was 18 y ears old, 5' 3 " in heig ht,

and had g old teeth,” and Adam F r ank, who “was 24 y e ars of ag e a n d 6 '5 " i n h e i gh t.” Id

. “The

survivors identified F rank’s accomplice as a black male with g o ld teeth across the top, less than 20

y ears of ag e, and just over five feet tall.” Id

.

2 5 After the Vus had locked u p, F ran k a n d D e f

e n d ant, a man she previously introduced as her

nephew, returned to the restaurant for their third time. S ee L a C a z e

, 9 9

- 0584 at 3, 8 24 So. 2d at

1066. There were six workers still in th e r e s t a u r ant–four V u sibling s, a w aitress, and Officer

W illiams. Id. 99-0584 at 2, 824 So. 2d at 1066. The two surviving Vu sibling s testified that they

were with F rank near the kitchen a r ea when they heard g

unshots in the bar a

rea in the front of the

restaurant where Officer W illiams was located, after which “F rank spun a round and ran towards the

bar and the front of the restaurant.” See id

. 99-054 at 3, 824 So.2d at 1067. Defendant and F rank

were then seen in the kitchen area “running around, rummag ing

, ‘dig g ing in this little area where [ the

Vus hid their] money .’” Id. 99-0584 at 4, 824 So. 2d at 1067. Shortly after, g unshots were heard

from the stove area where the other two Vu sibling s were shot. Id.

18M o reo v er, no t h i n g i n t h e reco rd show s tha t the se un us u al ci rcu m st an ces cau s ed J u d g e

M aru l l o t o fav o r o ne p art y

.

Defen d an t pl aces s i g n i fi can ce o n t h e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s deci s i o n i n Ri ppo

,

s u g g es t i n g t h at th e Co u rt fo un d t h at t h e t ri al ju d g e’ s i n v o lv em en t i n an i n v es t i g at i o n

co n du ct ed b y t h e p ro s ecu t i n g en t i t y g i v es ri s e t o an u nc o n s t i t u t i o n al p o t en t i al fo r

b i as

. Ho wev er, t h e Su pre m e C o u rt in Ri ppo d i d n ot ad d res s th e m eri t s o f t h e

d efen d an t ’ s d u e p ro ces s cl ai m

, n o r b y i t s ru li n g d i d i t i n s i n u at e t h at t h e s tat e co urt ’ s

u l t i m at e ru l i n g on t h e m eri t s of t h e d efen d an t ’ s d ue p ro ces s cl ai m was i n co rrect

. 2 6

Fu rt h erm o re, th ere is n o t h i n g i n t h e Su prem e Co u rt ’ s rem an d i n La Ca ze t h at

i n d i cat es t he Co urt ’ s b el i ef t h at t h e ci rcu m s t a n c e s i n R i ppo an d La Ca ze are

s u ffi ci en t l y an al o go u s s uch t h at t h e res o l u ti o n o f t h e ju di ci al d is q u al i fi c a t i o n i s s u e

wo u l d b e t he s am e.

W e reject Defen d an t ’ s cl ai m s t h at “ t h e pro b ab i l i ty o f act u al bi as ” i s hi g h er in

t h i s cas e t h an i n Ri ppo

. Si n ce Defen d an t’ s cas e d o es n o t i n v o l v e an i n v es ti g at i o n o f

t h e p res i d i n g ju d g e b y t h e d i s tri ct at t o rn ey ’ s o ffi ce, t h e i n v es t i g at io n i n t h is cas e d o es

n o t i n v o l ve a p o ss i b l e s el f-i n teres t t h at co u l d be co ns i d ered p ecu n i ary fo r t h e ju d ge.

Th e fact th at t h e p res i d i n g t ri al ju d g e i n Ri ppo d i s cl os ed h i s i m p erm i s s i b l e co n fl i ct

d u ri n g t h e co u rs e o f t ri al d o es n o t l es sen t h e p ro b ab i l i t y o f b i as c r e a t e d b y t h e

u n d erl y i n g i nv es t i g at i o n an d rel at ed ch arg es i n Ri ppo

.

W h i l e at fi rs t bl u s h th e fact t hat Ju d g e M aru ll o h ad i n fo rm at i o n ab o u t wh at was

p o t en t i al ly t he m

u rd er weap o n m ig h t cau s e an av e rag e o b serv er t o q u es ti o n h i m

2 6 Rippo ’s remand was premised not on the lower co u r t having reached an incorrect result, but

simply on its having f

ailed t o “ a s k t h e q uestion o ur precedents require.” See Rippo

, 137 S.Ct. at

907.

19s i tt i n g i n a cap it al t ri al

, th e ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h i s cas e, wh en carefu l ly ex am i n ed

, d o

n o t m eet t h e s t an d ard s et b y t h e Un i t ed St at es Su p rem e Co u rt i n Ri ppo

. 2 7

Befo re t h e al l o t m en t of Defen d an t’ s cas e, Ju d ge M aru l l o was q u es t i o n ed

d u ri n g an i n t ern al i nv es t i g at i o n b y t h e NOPD o f o n e o f i t s offi cers ab o u t t h e

au t h en t i c i t y o f t h e s i g n at u re t h at ap peared o n t h e co u rt o rd er t h at au th o ri zed t h e

rel eas e o f a 9 m

m g u n t h at m a y h a v e b een u s ed i n t h e m u rd ers o f O ffi cer W i l l i am s

an d t h e Vu si b l i n gs

. 2 8 O n c e D e f en d an t ’ s cas e was as s i gn ed t o J ud g e M aru l l o

, h e

ap p ro p ri at el y d ecl i n ed an y fu rt her co m m en t u n t i l t h e cas e was res o l v ed

. Co n s i d eri n g

t h e p s y ch o lo g i cal t en d en ci es o f t h e av erag e ju d g e, as w e are req ui red t o d o

, 2 9 we d o

n o t fi n d t h at t h e p re-al l ot m en t q u es t i o ni n g of J u d g e M a r u l l o an d h i s fai l u re to

d i s cl os e k n o wl ed g e o f s u ch i n v es t i g at i o n are t h e s o r t o f rare an d ex t rem e

ci rcu m s t an ces 3 0 t hat wo u ld cau s e t h e av erag e ju d g e t o fav o r o n e p art y s o as t o b e

o b ject i vel y s u g g es t i v e o f b i as o r a “ p ro b ab i l i t y o f act u al b i as .” Perh ap s t h e av erag e

ju d g e i n J u d g e M aru ll o ’ s p o s i t i o n wo ul d hav e h arb o red s o m e sen s i t i v i t y ab o ut

wh et h er h i s s i g n at u re was fo rg ed

. Real i s t i cal l y

, t he av erag e ju d g e wo u ld be v i g i l an t

t o av o id bei n g u nju st l y as s o ci at ed wi t h an y wro n g d o i n g s u r r o u n d in g t he rel eas e o f

t h e p o s s i b l e m

u rd er w eap o n t o Fran k

. Al t h ou g h th e av erag e ju d g e i n t h i s p o s i t i o n

2 7 A s previously stated, the appointed judg e d noted (after ex tensive proceeding s d u ring t h e p o s t

conviction hearing

, in w hich he heard testimony f r o m J u d ge Marullo) “[ t] his is a classic ex ample

of circumstances and appearances creating an inference unsupported by facts.”

2 8 The fact that N OPD investig ated the triple murders a nd also questioned J u d ge M a r u llo in its

internal investig ation of Officer Talley is not sig nificant in the determination of the probability of

actual bias.

2 9 The Rippo-Caperton standard involves consideration of whether “under a realistic appraisal of

psy cholog ical tendencies and human weakness,” the circumstances “pose [ ] such a r isk of actual

bias or prejudg ment tha t t h e p r a ctice must be forbidden if the g uarantee of due process is to be

adequately implemented.” Caperton

, 556 U.S. at 883-84 (2009) (quoting Withrow

, 421 U.S. a t

47).

3 0 The fed e ral constitutional standard for judicial disqualification is implicated only in “rare

instances.” See Caperton , 556 U.S. at 890; see also Bracy , 520 U.S. at 904.

20m ay h arb o r th es e s en s i t i v it i es

, i t d o e s n o t fo l l o w th at th e av erag e ju d g e wo u ld

reas on ab l y

h arb or an y

b i as fo r o r ag ai n s t Defen d an t b ecau s e o f t h es e s en s i t i v i t i es

.

W h i l e we d o n o t fi n d p ro o f o f a p ro b ab i l i t y o f act u al b i as h as b een m ad e by

Defen d an t

, we al s o d o n o t fi n d u n d er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h i s cas e t h at t h e

d efen d an t ’ s cl ai m s hav e b een p ro v en t o b e “ t o o h i g h t o b e co n s t i t u t i on al l y t o l erab l e.

See Federa l Tra de Co m m i s s i o n v

. C em ent Ins ti tute

, 3 33 U.S. 6 8 3

, 7 0 2 (1 9 4 8 )

(“ [M ] os t m at t ers rel at i n g to j u d i ci al d is q u al i fi cat i o n [d o] n ot ri se t o a co n s t i t u t i o n al

l ev el

. ”). Th e as s o ci at i on b et w een t h e p ot en t i al s o u rce o f bi as i n t h i s cas e an d wh at

m i g h t reas on ab l y b e ex p ect ed to b e a ju d ge’ s an ti ci p at ed p sy ch o l o g i cal react i o n are

far t o o rem o t e an d at t en u at ed t o s h o w a “ p ro b ab i l i t y o f act u al b i as o n t h e p art o f

[J u d g e Maru l l o ]

... [t h at ] i s t o o h i g h t o be co n s t i t ut i o n al l y t o lerab l e.” Ev en g ran t i n g

t h at t he i n q u iry in t o t h e au t h en t i ci t y o f J u d g e M aru l l o ’ s s i g n at u r e w a s t ech n i cal l y

rel at ed t o Defen dan t ’ s cas e an d m ay

, t h erefo r e

, h av e p ro m p t ed an av erag e ju d g e to

d i s cl os e th i s i n fo rm at i o n

, Defen d an t fai l s t o s h ow t h at J u d g e M aru l l o ’ s d i s p ut ed ro l e

i n t h e ad m i n i s trat i v e rel eas e o f a 9 m m g u n w as ob

ject i v el y (an d real i s t i cal l y ) l i k el y

t o cau s e bi as fo r o r ag ai ns t ei t h er p art y i n t h i s cas e. Th e co n t ro vers y at i ss u e i n t h i s

cas e m ark ed l y d i ffers fro m t h e ci rcu m s t an ces i n t h o s e cas es wh i ch t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

h as fo u nd o ffered “ a p o s s i b l e t em p t at i o n t o t h e av erag e

. .. ju d g e t o

... l ead h i m n o t to

h o l d t h e b al an ce n ice, cl ear an d t ru e.” See C a perto n

, 5 56 U.S. at 8 8 5 (q u o t i n g

Tum ey

, 2 7 3 U.S. at 5 3 2 ). In co n t ras t

, it i s u n cl ear u n d er th e ci rcu m s t an ces h o w t h e

Bu reau ’ s i n t ern al i n v es t i g at i o n i n t o t h e m ean s b y wh i ch Offi cer Tal ley h ad a 9 m m

g u n rel eas ed to Fran k o r t h e co n t ro v ers y as t o wh et h er Ju d ge M aru ll o’ s s i g nat u re was

g en ui n e co u l d s i g n i fi can t l y an d i rrev o cab l y co l o r Ju d g e Maru l l o ’ s p ers p ect i v e s u ch

t h at h e wo u l d n o t b e i n a p os i ti o n “ t o h o l d t h e b al an ce [b et ween Defen d an t an d t h e

p ro s ecu ti o n ] n ice, cl ear, an d t ru e.” See i d

.

21DECREE

Fo r t h e fo reg o i n g reas o n s

, we fi n d t h at th e co u rt o f ap p eal co rrect l y rev ers ed t h e t ri al

co u r t ’s o r d er fo r a n ew t ri al an d p ro p erl y rei n s t at ed Defen d an t ’ s co n v i ct i o n.

Defen d an t ’ s req u es t fo r s u b s t an t i v e rel i ef i s d en ied

.

W RI T DENI ED.

22