COMPLEX LITIGATION IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES: DUE PROCESS AND THE NEUTRALITY OF JUDGES

COMPLEX LITIGATION IN BERGEN AND PASSAIC COUNTIES:

DUE PROCESS AND THE NEUTRALITY OF JUDGES

The strength of the American Justice System rises and falls on the integrity of its judges. In a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court, the soft underbelly of this concept has been exposed.

In August 2002, a jury in West Virginia rendered a multi- million dollar verdict against a coal company for fraud and tortuous interference with business opportunity. After the verdict, but prior to the appeal, the defendant coal company's CEO donated 3 million dollars in campaign contributions to an attorney who was running for a seat on West Virginia's Supreme Court. Ultimately, the lawyer was appointed to the high court.

By the time the case reached the West Virginia Supreme Court, the favored lawyer now Justice, voted in favor of entertaining the defendant, coal company's appeal and ultimately the jury's verdict was reversed. The case found its way to the United States Supreme Court who reversed this decision citing federal due process concerns. Specifically, the court concluded that the defendant coal company's "significant and disproportionate influence" in placing the favored lawyer in a position of responsibility on the West Virginia Supreme Court was a violation of the due process clause.