Court Opinion

ID: 9687508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:33:18.168638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:28.354371
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Justice
(concurring specially) :
I concur in denying the writ for certiorari because the Court of Criminal Appeals found as a fact from the evidence that Judge Emmet was biased.
The first Court of Appeals of Alabama was created in 1911, and from 1913 to the present, it has been the rule, with certain exceptions not here pertinent, that where a Court of Appeals has reached a conclusion of fact, this court would not, on certiorari, review the finding of that court. 4 Ala. Dig., Certiorari ^68, 7 Ala.Dig., Criminal Law ®=>1179.
To my mind, there is a stronger reason for denying the writ. As shown and catalogued in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, the matter of the Latham and White trials has been a widely publicized and continuing controversy between Judge Emmet and the Court of Criminal Appeals since December, 1973. It would be impossible for an open-minded person to read the opinion before us and not wonder if there was not some foundation for the charges of bias which have been made against Judge Emmet more than once in the circuit and appellate courts.
Our judicial system must generate and deserve the confidence of the people to remain effective. This is especially neces*779sary in this day of Watergate and its consequences. It is important for all judges, not only to try to see that justice is done, but to endeavor to maintain and preserve the appearance of justice.
In one of our recent cases, Morgan County Commission v. Powell, 292 Ala. 300, 293 So.2d 830, it was said:
“The statutory causes of disqualification of a judge are not exclusive of the common law principles on the same subject, one of which is that no judge ought to act where, from interest or any other cause, he is supposed to be partial to one of the suitors. Smith v. Pitts, 139 Ala. 152, 36 So. 20; Bryce v. Burke, Probate Judge, 172 Ala. 219, 55 So. 635. Nor should a judge act if he has any interest, the probable and natural tendency of which is to create a bias in the mind of the judge for or against a party to the suit. Woodmen of the World v. Alford, 206 Ala. 18, 89 So. 528.”
Applying this test to the case before us, I conclude that it is correct for a judge other than Judge Emmet to try the White case.
Nothing contained herein is intended to question the integrity of Judge Emmet. He is widely known and the people of the 15th Judicial Circuit admire and respect him. It is unfortunate that the controversy existed, but since it did, it is better for the judge to step aside in these cases in order that not even a small segment of the circuit’s population might wonder if, in view of all that has gone before, Judge Emmet was biased in these cases, which have been intertwined to some degree since December, 1973.
But the controversy will break out anew every time Judge Emmet presides over one of these trials and, once again, the public will be influenced to doubt the fairness of the judicial process in those cases. The way to end the controversy is to have the cases tried before another circuit judge. That is the effect of the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I do not subscribe to all that is contained in that opinion, but to my mind, the result reached is necessary.