The removal of US District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson from the government's case against Microsoft Corp is a rare instance of a trial judge being disqualified by a higher court, legal experts said.
The appeals court's reprimand of Jackson as a publicity seeker who created an appearance of bias almost unheard of, they said.
"This appeals court is slapping him down as hard as they can in hopes that when he gets back up, he won't do it again," said Stanley Goldman, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles.
Jackson, in comments made while deciding whether to break up the company and published after his ruling, called Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates "Napoleonic." He compared the company's attitude to that of a drug gang denying its guilt.
Describing his decision to order the software giant split in two, Jackson told reporters he felt like a trainer who smacked a mule in the head with a two-by-four "to get his attention."
In overturning Jackson's breakup order today, a unanimous seven-member US appeals court cited Jackson's ``secret interviews'' given to reporters, calling them ``offensive.''
"This admonishment of Judge Jackson is rather harsh," said Professor Jeffrey Shaman of DePaul University law school in Chicago. "It was just extremely ill-advised of Judge Jackson to be doing media interviews while the case was still pending."
The appeals court used 19 pages of its 125-page decision to discuss Jackson's comments.
"Rather than manifesting neutrality and impartiality," the appeals court said, Jackson's interviews "convey the impression of a judge posturing for posterity, trying to please the reporters with colorful analogies and observations."
He isn't the first federal judge removed from a case because of comments to the media.
In February, the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals based in Boston ruled that Judge Nancy Gertner should have removed herself from a lawsuit involving Boston school assignments. Her remarks to the Boston Herald about the status of the case created an appearance of impropriety, the appellate judges said.
In 1995, a judge presiding over antitrust cases against International Business Machines Corp was disqualified for talking to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Not all experts on ethics frown on what they say is a growing tendency by judges to be more open with the media.
"It's a positive development, because it reflects greater media attention and public interest in the judicial system," said William G. Ross, a law professor at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, who teaches legal ethics. "But, inevitably, it means judges are more encouraged to speak to the media in a way that could create the appearance of bias."
Judges are rarely disqualified for comments made on the bench, unless they indicate some bias against a group or demonstrate unfitness for the job.
"The rule is they can make the most extreme comments on the bench as long as they can make a ruling impartially," said Shaman, whose treatise on judicial ethics was cited in Thursday's Microsoft ruling.
"When judges make comments outside the court, that's particularly harmful because the parties to the case don't have the opportunity to respond," Shaman said.
RSS