Preview:

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
PROVIDENCE, SC.                                                                                                  Filed July 23, 2010   SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND                                                                                            :
                                                                                                                 :
V.                                                                                                               :                     P1/2004-1286A
                                                                                                                 :                     PM/2008-6752
:
JOHN EDDY                                                                                                        :
DECISION
K. RODGERS, J.    This matter came on before the Court on Petitioner John Eddy’s
motion to recuse, received by the Court by letter dated July 9, 2010 (a copy of which is
attached).   In the interest of resolving all the matters before this Court without further
delay, this Court issues the within decision as if the letter was a properly filed motion
before this Court.  For the reasons set forth below, this Court denies Petitioner’s motion.
I
Travel
This matter originally came before this Court on or about January 21, 2010, on
Petitioner’s Motion for Further Authorization in Connection with Ongoing DNA Testing.
The State filed its Objection and the matter was scheduled for hearing before this Court
on April 26, 2010.  On that date, however, Petitioner had not yet received or reviewed the
State’s written objection and therefore the case was rescheduled for argument on May 3,
2010.1
1 On March 19, 2010, Petitioner filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Rhode Island
Supreme Court seeking to prevent this Court from ruling on Petitioner’s pending Motion for Further DNA
Testing, and for the Supreme Court to order the State to pay for the additional testing sought.   Notably, the
Supreme Court has not acted on such Emergency Petition.
1




Oral argument was conducted on May 3, 2010, with Petitioner represented by
counsel for the purposes of the oral argument only and not with respect to any appeal
from the appeal from P1/2004-1286A.   While this Court was preparing a written decision
on Petitioner’s Motion, Petitioner moved to have this Court disqualified from further
consideration of this matter.   Specifically, Petitioner alleges that in light of the Court’s
marriage to a sworn member of the Rhode Island State Police, “there is very likely a
concern  amounting  to  a  conflict  of  interest  that  would  preclude                        [this  Court]  from
continuing  on  as  a  reviewing  justice  of                                                   [Petitioner’s]  case.”    See  July                                        9,   2010
correspondence.
II
Standard for Recusal
Article VI, Canon  3E of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Judicial
Conduct provides as follows:
E.                                                                                              Disqualification
1.                                                                                              A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the
judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not
limited to instances where:
(a)                                                                                             The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party  or  a  party’s  lawyer,  or  personal  knowledge  of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b)                                                                                             The judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy,
or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced
law  served  during  such  association  as  a  lawyer
concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material
witness concerning it;
(c)                                                                                             The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a
fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse, parent or child wherever
residing,  or  any  other  member  of  the  judge’s  family
residing  in  the  judge’s  household,  has  an  economic
interest in the subject matter in controversy   or in a party
to the proceeding or has any more than a de minimis
interest  that  could  be  substantially  affected  by  the
proceeding[;]
2




(d)                                                                                             The judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person within the
third  degree  of  relationship  to  either  of  them,  or  the
spouse of such person:
(i)  is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director or
trustee of a party;
(ii)  is acting as a lawyer on the proceeding;
(iii) is known by the judge to have more than a de minimis
interest that could be substantially affected by the
proceeding;
(iv) is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material
witness in the proceeding.
Further, Canon 3F provides:
F.                                                                                              Remittal of Disqualification.   A judge disqualified by the terms of Section 3E
may disclose on the record the basis of the judge’s disqualification and may
ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, out of the presence of the judge,
whether to waive disqualification.   If following disclosure of any basis for
disqualification other than personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, the
parties and lawyers, without participation by the judge, all agree that the judge
should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate, the
judge may participate in the proceeding.   The agreement shall be incorporated
into the record of the proceedings.
III
Analysis
Petitioner maintains that this Court is disqualified from ruling upon the pending
Motion for Further Authorization in Connection with Ongoing DNA Testing by virtue of
Canon 3E.   In support thereof, Petitioner asserts that the Rhode Island State Police, with
whom Cpl. Scott Raynes is employed, is the same agency that investigated the allegations
that culminated in the indictment and conviction in P1-04-1286A.   Notably, Cpl. Raynes
has  never  served  in  the  Detective  Division  of  the  Rhode  Island  State  Police,  the
investigating unit within the Division of the State Police, and otherwise was not an
arresting officer in Petitioner’s case.   This Court certainly has no personal knowledge of
any evidentiary facts concerning that investigation that took place on or after December
20, 2002.   Canon 3E(1)(a).   Moreover, no member of the Rhode Island State Police,
3




including Cpl. Raynes, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy -
namely, the further DNA testing sought by Petitioner - or any more than a de minimis
interest  that  could  be  substantially  affected  by  the  pending  Motion  for  Further
Authorization in Connection with Ongoing DNA Testing.   Canon 3E(1)(c).   Finally, Cpl.
Raynes is not likely to be a material witness to this Motion for Further Authorization in
Connection with Ongoing DNA Testing and is not a party to this proceeding, nor is the
Rhode Island State Police a party to the proceeding.   Canon 3E(1)(d).   For these reasons,
this Court is not disqualified by the express terms of Canon 3E.
Further, this Court notes that the disqualification of a judge is not limited to the
enumerated situations set forth in Canon 3E(1)(a) - (d).   Canon 3E.   The issue, then, is
whether this Court’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”   Id.   This Court’s
consideration of Petitioner’s case is limited to the narrow issue of Petitioner’s request for
additional DNA testing beyond the Y-STR DNA testing already conducted.   In no way
does this Court’s consideration venture into the propriety, conduct or results of any
Rhode Island State Police investigation.   This Court is not called upon to assess the
credibility of any member of the Rhode Island State Police, nor does the Rhode Island
State Police benefit economically or otherwise by any ruling that this Court makes on
Petitioner’s pending Motion.   Accordingly, this Court’s impartiality could not reasonably
be questioned.  Canon 3E(1).
Finally, because this Court is not disqualified pursuant to Canon 3E or any other
Rule of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3F is inapplicable.
4




For all these reasons, and in the interest of the efficient and timely resolution of
matters brought before this Court, this Court treats Petitioner’s written communication
dated July 9, 2010 as a properly filed Motion to Recuse and denies the same.
IV
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion to disqualify is denied.   An order
consistent with this Decision shall be prepared by counsel for the State.
5

Download 04-1286-recuse.pdf

Rhode Island Law