Opinion ID: 2807870
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Genesis of the Disqualification Motions

Text: These disqualification proceedings were spawned by a concurrence written by then-Chief Justice Castille of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a decision denying PCRA relief to a petitioner represented by the Federal Community Defender. Chief Justice Castille criticized the organization’s representation of capital inmates in state proceedings and asked pointedly: “is it appropriate, given principles of federalism, for the federal courts to finance abusive litigation in state courts that places such a burden on this Court?” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 334 (Pa. 2011) (Castille, C.J., concurring). Chief Justice Castille answered in the negative, commenting on the “obstructionist” tactics of the Federal Community Defender attorneys and the “perverse[ness]” of the commitment of federal resources to 3 Middle District Plan, § VII, available at http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/cja_plan.pdf (last visited May 27, 2015). 9 state post-conviction proceedings. Id. at 165.