DeKalb prosecutors said a judge who made controversial rulings in a murder case should disqualify himself from any possible future proceedings because the defense lawyer represents his son in a separate felony case.
The court filing Thursday contends that Superior Court Judge Mark Anthony Scott’s “highly unusual and inexplicable” rulings in the case of Pam Ballin made it reasonable to question his impartiality.
In June, Scott allowed Ballin, 53, to go home after a jury convicted her of bludgeoning her husband to death, saying he was still considering a defense request for a mistrial or for him to override the jury verdict and acquit Ballin.
The judge had an ethical obligation to disclose on the court record that his 35-year-old son was represented by Ballin’s attorney Keith Adams to avoid the appearance of bias, said ethics expert Clark Cunningham. Cunningham is the W. Lee Burge Chair in Law & Ethics at the Georgia State University College of Law and is the director of the National Institute for Teaching Ethics & Professionalism.
“It is not necessary that the judge actually be biased,” Cunningham said. “A judge should bend over backwards to avoid a situation where the public might doubt whether the judge is being impartial.”
Scott’s ruling outraged District Attorney Robert James who after a media firestorm successfully petitioned the judge to have Ballin jailed until a July hearing. Last week, Scott sentenced Ballin to life in prison without a hearing for a mistrial or directed verdict of acquittal.
The judge, however, would still preside over Ballin’s pending motion for a new trial and over the case if it is reversed on appeal.
In seeking the judge’s recusal, Chief Deputy Assistant District Attorney Anna Green Cross wrote several of the judge’s decisions “add to the perception that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
She cited:
• delayed sentencing after the jury returned a verdict of guilty of malice murder
• released defendant Ballin pending sentencing
• delayed ruling on a motion for directed verdict and two mistrial motions until after the verdict had been returned
• reversed his decision only after considerable negative media attention
Attempts to reach Judge Scott for comment were unsuccessful. Judges usually don’t comment on cases before them.
Defense lawyer Adams lambasted the demand for Scott’s recusal, saying James’ office knew he represented the judge’s son. Adams contends the case against Ballin is weak legally and a strong candidate on appeal on both the evidence and because a witness ignored an order to testify in court and went on vacation.
“That is absolute bull,” he said. “They’re doing it for the purpose of trying to intimidate the judge.”
Ethics expert Cunningham said the judge’s rulings, even if justified, showed why he should have put on the trial record his son’s relationship with Adams. Now the public might believe he was trying to hide it.
“That explains the policy that judges should avoid the appearance of impropriety,” Cunningham said.“This is obviously a bad situation where the judge has made decisions that brought public scrutiny.”
In the court filing, Cross said the prosecutors only now realized Adams’ relationship with the judge’s son, Byron Anthony Scott, who court records show as charged in 2013 with aggravated assault. James removed his office from the case and it is assigned to an outside prosecutor for review.
Adams said the case emanated from a traffic accident in which a woman accused Byron Scott of pointing a pistol at her and that it was likely to be resolved as a misdemeanor or not indicted.
About the Author
