Legal News

The Recusal Kerfuffle at the West Virginia Supreme Court

By Peter Lattman

For those of you riveted by the recusal kerfuffle at the West Virginia Supreme Court, it looks like the story has legs.

To review: the Mountain State’s chief justice Elliott “Spike” Maynard agreed to recuse himself from a pending case involving Massey Energy after photographs emerged of him and Massey’s CEO gallivanting in Monte Carlo during the summer of 2006 as Massey was appealing a big jury verdict against it to the state’s high court. Last November, Maynard voted with the majority in a 3-to-2 decision overturning the verdict. In response to a petition to revisit the ruling, Maynard DQed himself, citing concerns about perception and public confidence in the courts but noting that “I have no doubt in my own mind and firmly believe I have been and would be fair and impartial in this case.”

The Charleston Gazette reports that another justice on the court has requested an investigation into the matter. Justice Larry Starcher (pictured, lower left) said yesterday in a memo to the court’s administrator that he believes “extremely serious legal and ethical issues” persist regarding the relationship between Maynard and Don Blankenship, the top dog at Massey. He alleged in the memo that possible evidence exists beyond the photos that were attached to the motion requesting Maynard’s recusal.

Justice Starcher, as it happens, issued a stinging dissent in the Massey case. Check this out:

The majority’s opinion is morally and legally wrong.

The majority opinion is morally wrong because it steals more than $60 million dollars from a man who was the victim of a deliberate, illegal scheme to destroy his business. The majority opinion is legally wrong because it uses erroneous legal reasoning to justify an immoral result.

…Let’s not forget why the jury’s verdict was justified: the jurors looked Blankenship in the eye and concluded that he was lying, and that [the plaintiff] was telling the truth. The majority opinion says: “That doesn’t matter” — it all should have been handled in Virginia. To which argument, one must respond: “Horse puckey!”

Now three members of this Court have ruled that even though it is a fact that Don Blankenship illegally took over $60 million dollars from [the plaintiff] — he can get away with it scot-free. Talk about crime in the suites!

. . .What is sad is that a majority of this Court is telling a West Virginia jury that their work to bring about justice was a complete waste. Accordingly, I dissent.

Steve Canterbury, the court administrator who has a bit of a situation on his hands, told the AP he’s requested an immediate meeting of the entire court. “I’m looking for direction on the court on how to proceed,” Canterbury said. Meanwhile, Hampshire County Circuit Judge Donald Cookman is taking Maynard’s place in the Massey case; they’ll take up the the reconsideration petition tomorrow.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on January 23, 2008 (boomark / email).