While I could see that Liu’s ideological issues might be invisible to the Obama administration, how in the world did Chatigny slip by the vetters? Apparently, his actions in the Michael Ross case are bizarre and out of bounds for a judge. Just for context here, Michael Ross killed eight girls and women (raping seven of his victims) over a period of time between 1981 and 1984).
Incredibly, Judge Chatigny said Ross’ “sexual sadism, which was found by every single person who looked at him, is clearly a mitigating factor.” He described Michael Ross as “the least culpable of the people on death row,” and said, “He never should have been convicted. Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death.”
Hours before Ross’ execution, after Ross said he wanted to die to end the anguish of his victims’ families, after Judge Chatigny’s two stays of execution were overturned, and after the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld the death sentence, Chatigny summoned the attorneys for a teleconference hearing in another effort to interfere with the execution of the jury’s verdict.
A transcript reveals that he pressured Ross’ lawyer to seek another competency hearing (Ross had already been found competent by a state court) and further appeals—even though Ross did not want either. When the attorney insisted on following his client’s wishes, Chatigny threatened him, stating, “You better be prepared to deal with me. … I’ll have your law license.”
As it turned out, Chatigny had been involved in Ross’ case before becoming a judge. The prosecutors who filed the complaint discovered Chatigny had filed an appearance on behalf of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and a leave to file an amicus brief challenging Ross’ original sentence. He failed to disclose this obvious conflict of interest—even when asked by the state’s attorney. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that this, the only death penalty case that he had worked on in 25 years, involving a horrific serial murderer of women and girls, had “slipped his mind.”
That last paragraph for me is the final nail in the coffin. Anyone who fails to disclose major conflicts of interest in a death penalty case should never be allowed on the bench. In fact, I consider it an impeachable offense worthy of getting Congress to remove him from the bench.
I smell a controversy brewing, one that may take the spotlight away from other more worthy causes. Given the content of the article these two judges may be a sacrifice to cover greater misdeeds by the administration! One fervently hopes they will not be confirmed
While I could see that Liu’s ideological issues might be invisible to the Obama administration, how in the world did Chatigny slip by the vetters? Apparently, his actions in the Michael Ross case are bizarre and out of bounds for a judge. Just for context here, Michael Ross killed eight girls and women (raping seven of his victims) over a period of time between 1981 and 1984).
That last paragraph for me is the final nail in the coffin. Anyone who fails to disclose major conflicts of interest in a death penalty case should never be allowed on the bench. In fact, I consider it an impeachable offense worthy of getting Congress to remove him from the bench.
I smell a controversy brewing, one that may take the spotlight away from other more worthy causes. Given the content of the article these two judges may be a sacrifice to cover greater misdeeds by the administration! One fervently hopes they will not be confirmed