Your Experienced Legal Team | Se Habla Español 

Judge’s Communication Was Not a Harmless Error

In this country, every person facing criminal accusations has the right to a fair trial. That includes having effective counsel on their side, but it also involves ensuring that, if convicted, they receive unbiased sentencing from the judge. Unfortunately, in some cases, a judge's misstep could result in an unfair process.

Such happened in a case where a man was accused of committing federal drug crimes. He pleaded guilty to three counts and was sentenced to 210 months in prison by Judge Colin S. Bruce. However, the defendant learned that while his case was pending, Judge Bruce had improperly discussed other cases with the prosecuting U.S. Attorney's Office, where he had worked for many years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney before being appointed a judge.

The defendant appealed the sentencing decision, stating that it was unfair, and Judge Bruce should have excused himself. Under the federal recusal law, if a judge's impartiality could be questioned, they must recuse themselves from the proceedings.

Did the Communications Affect Decisions?

Last year, a newspaper reported that Judge Bruce had been communicating with the U.S. Attorney's Office about one of their cases he was hearing. Email exchanges between him and his former colleagues showed him cheering them on and calling them by nicknames.

The Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit examined a couple of complaints regarding Judge Bruce's communications with the U.S. Attorney's Office. It determined that they were harmless and did not affect his decisions. However, it did rebuke him for communicating with former colleagues, stating that doing so breached the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

Were the Communications Actually Harmless?

The recent case was sent to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to determine whether or not Judge Bruce's communications were in fact harmless.

To do this, the Seventh Circuit applied the three factors outlined in Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., which include whether there was a risk of:

  • Injustice in the present case,
  • Injustice in future cases, and
  • Undermining the public's confidence in the criminal justice process

The Seventh Circuit determined that the communication shared between Judge Bruce and the U.S. Attorney's Office resulted in an unfair process for the defendant. It stated that personal biases could have affected the outcome of the case.

Additionally, by enforcing the recusal law, the Seventh Circuit sends the message that judges in future cases should use caution in their communications to prevent injustices from occurring.

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit stated that sentencing is in large part based on a judge's own sense of fairness, and when that appears to be compromised, the public questions the integrity of the outcome.

The current case met all three factors of Liljeberg, and Judge Bruce's communication was determined not to be a harmless error. The Seventh Circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing by a different judge.

If you have been accused of a federal crime, contact Zendeh Del & Associates, PLLC for the aggressive legal representation you need in Galveston. We can be reached by phone at (409) 204-5566 or online.