A judge's connection to the prosecution that sent a defendant to death row is at the heart of an evidentiary hearing, which will determine whether she can preside over his case fairly.
Judge Susan Stallings was assigned to preside over Richard Glossip’s third trial after her previous judges recused themselves due to their ties to the Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office. During a closed-door proceeding known as a Rule 15 hearing, Glossip's defense attorneys asked Stallings if she could be impartial in the case.
Stallings explained that she had worked with Fern Smith, the former prosecutor who sent Glossip to death row, during her time at the DA's office in the early 1990s. Stallings told Briefcase, a publication of the Oklahoma County Bar Association, that Smith taught her about seeking justice rather than convictions.
However, Stallings also revealed that she had taken a trip with Smith and other colleagues from the DA's office to Spain in 1997, just before Glossip was charged with murder. Stallings claimed that she and Smith were not even in the same car during the trip and that they did not discuss any of the cases Smith was handling.
Glossip’s defense attorneys argued that this trip raises concerns about Stallings' impartiality. They cited an affidavit from federal public defender Amanda Bass Castro Alves, who described a scene with striking parallels to the Rule 15 hearing in Glossip's case. During the "in-chambers discussion," Judge Stallings referred to the trip as a 'hen do,' which is a term used for a bachelorette party.
The contrast between Stallings' description of the trip and her description of it as a 'hen do' suggests that either the nature of the trip was different than what Stallings disclosed, or that there have been multiple trips with different purposes and tone. Glossip's attorneys argued that this raises a reasonable doubt about Stallings' ability to fairly rule on the credibility of Smith.
Abbe Smith, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in legal ethics, noted that Stallings "devotes more pages to Fern Smith's testimony than anyone else's... and does not merely find her testimony 'credible,' but finds credible Ms. Smith's resolute testimony." This suggests that Stallings may have shown loyalty towards Smith.
Glossip’s defense team argues that whether Stallings was persuaded to rule against Wood because she was secretly biased in Fern Smith's favor is ultimately not the point. The question of recusal is based on whether a judge might look biased to an outside observer.
The evidentiary hearing will be crucial in determining whether Stallings can preside over Glossip’s case fairly. Defense lawyers argue that allowing Stallings to remain on the case undermines their commitment to ensuring a fair trial for Glossip.
If she cannot recuse herself, Glossip's attorneys are seeking to have any judge who served in the Oklahoma County DA's office disqualified from the case. They believe that fighting for Stallings to stay on sends the message that "the game is already rigged."
Ultimately, whether Stallings will be allowed to preside over Glossip’s case remains uncertain. The hearing will likely reveal more about her connections to Smith and the potential for bias in her impartiality.
Judge Susan Stallings was assigned to preside over Richard Glossip’s third trial after her previous judges recused themselves due to their ties to the Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office. During a closed-door proceeding known as a Rule 15 hearing, Glossip's defense attorneys asked Stallings if she could be impartial in the case.
Stallings explained that she had worked with Fern Smith, the former prosecutor who sent Glossip to death row, during her time at the DA's office in the early 1990s. Stallings told Briefcase, a publication of the Oklahoma County Bar Association, that Smith taught her about seeking justice rather than convictions.
However, Stallings also revealed that she had taken a trip with Smith and other colleagues from the DA's office to Spain in 1997, just before Glossip was charged with murder. Stallings claimed that she and Smith were not even in the same car during the trip and that they did not discuss any of the cases Smith was handling.
Glossip’s defense attorneys argued that this trip raises concerns about Stallings' impartiality. They cited an affidavit from federal public defender Amanda Bass Castro Alves, who described a scene with striking parallels to the Rule 15 hearing in Glossip's case. During the "in-chambers discussion," Judge Stallings referred to the trip as a 'hen do,' which is a term used for a bachelorette party.
The contrast between Stallings' description of the trip and her description of it as a 'hen do' suggests that either the nature of the trip was different than what Stallings disclosed, or that there have been multiple trips with different purposes and tone. Glossip's attorneys argued that this raises a reasonable doubt about Stallings' ability to fairly rule on the credibility of Smith.
Abbe Smith, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in legal ethics, noted that Stallings "devotes more pages to Fern Smith's testimony than anyone else's... and does not merely find her testimony 'credible,' but finds credible Ms. Smith's resolute testimony." This suggests that Stallings may have shown loyalty towards Smith.
Glossip’s defense team argues that whether Stallings was persuaded to rule against Wood because she was secretly biased in Fern Smith's favor is ultimately not the point. The question of recusal is based on whether a judge might look biased to an outside observer.
The evidentiary hearing will be crucial in determining whether Stallings can preside over Glossip’s case fairly. Defense lawyers argue that allowing Stallings to remain on the case undermines their commitment to ensuring a fair trial for Glossip.
If she cannot recuse herself, Glossip's attorneys are seeking to have any judge who served in the Oklahoma County DA's office disqualified from the case. They believe that fighting for Stallings to stay on sends the message that "the game is already rigged."
Ultimately, whether Stallings will be allowed to preside over Glossip’s case remains uncertain. The hearing will likely reveal more about her connections to Smith and the potential for bias in her impartiality.
...like, can a judge really be impartial if they've got personal connections with the prosecutor? I mean, imagine being part of a team with someone who sent your friend to death row - it's like, totally understandable if you're still loyal to them after all these years 
. But at the same time, isn't that exactly what's supposed to keep judges impartial in the first place? It's like they want to say "the game is already rigged" and I get why they'd feel that way 
...anyway, this whole thing is giving me major "Law & Order" vibes 
... I mean, come on, a trip with your old prosecutor pal and then you're like "oh, we were just friends, no big deal"? And Stallings thinks she's being so innocent about it too 
. It doesn't add up.
. I don't get why Glossip's lawyers are fighting to have her disqualified - isn't that what fairness is all about? It feels like they're just trying to create a bigger headache for themselves 
.
. If you can't trust your own judgment, how can we trust yours? It's like they're saying "good luck with that" 
.
this whole thing is just so shady 
think about it, Judge Stallings has a connection to the prosecutor who sent Glossip to death row, and now she's being asked if she can be impartial? like, what even is the point of that question? 
shouldn't we just trust her to make a fair decision or not? 
can't we just have one coherent narrative here? 
But for real, I'm all for getting to the bottom of things and making sure Glossip gets a fair trial, regardless of who's presiding over his case 
...
. Stallings' explanation that she didn't discuss cases with Smith during their trip to Spain sounds suspiciously like a whitewash 
.
.
.
! The fact that she was friends with the prosecutor and went on a trip together is just wild. And now they're saying it might've been a "hen do" but I'm not buying it 
it looks like Stallings was trying to downplay her connection to Smith and the DA's office. 