ABA, Other Groups Weigh in on Caperton's U.S. Supreme Court Appeal

A bid to get the U.S. Supreme Court to review a West Virginia ruling wiping out a $76.3 million judgment has attracted the attention of the American Bar Association and other groups.

As The Associated Press reports, the leading U.S. lawyers' association and at least four other organizations filed "friend of the court briefs" in the appeal by Harman Mining Co. and its president of the state Supreme Court's April decision in favor of Massey Energy Co.

"The groups fault Justice Brent Benjamin for remaining on the case after Don Blankenship, Massey's president, chairman and chief executive officer, spent more than $3 million to help him win his seat," the AP article said.

Other filing briefs include the Brennan Center for Justice, part of New York University's College of Law. The Center has devoted a page on its Web site to the case, and offers links to the appeal and to each of the briefs filed Monday.

The site also notes that Harman and Hugh Caperton, its president, have enlisted former Bush administration U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson in its appeal.

"The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial system today," Olson is quoted as saying on the Brennan site. "A line needs to be drawn somewhere to prevent a judge from hearing cases involving a person who has made massive campaign contributions to benefit the judge. We certainly believe that, in this case, acting Chief Justice Benjamin crossed that line."

Benjamin recently addressed calls for his recusal, in a 57-page concurring opinion issued nearly four months after the state court's 3-2 reversal of the Harman verdict.

From the AP story:

"It has long been recognized that there is 'a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators,'" Benjamin wrote, quoting from past court decisions. "Due process therefore requires recusal only in those rare cases wherein a judge or justice has a 'direct, personal, substantial (or) pecuniary interest' in the outcome of the case."

The Charleston Gazette also has a story, while The Chicago Tribune and the National Law Journal each invoke the West Virginia situation in articles exploring judicial recusals.