MOSCOW, April 28 (RIA Novosti) – Over a dozen US federal appeals court judges have violated federal conflict-of-interest laws over the past three years, casting doubt on the decisions in 26 cases, the Associated Press has reported citing an analysis from a watchdog group.
In its report, released Monday, the Center for Public Integrity found 24 cases in which judges ruled despite owning stock in a company appearing before them. In the other two cases, the judges had financial links to law firms representing one of the parties.
“After the center notified the judges of its findings, 16 judges had letters sent to the parties in all of those cases uncovered by the center during the months-long investigation. The letters are the first step in possibly reopening the cases,” the report said.
Several judges said their failure to withdraw from the cases was an accidental oversight, while some judges had conflicts in more than one case, AP reported.
"Of 255 judges on the second-highest courts in the nation, the financial disclosure reports of 111 of them had portions that were blacked out," according to the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis.
Under US law, federal judges may not sit on cases in which they have a financial interest. After a Washington Post investigation in 2006, courts introduced a computerized screening process to help judges avoid conflicts.
Each court has to screen for conflicts “on a regular schedule, including screening new matters as they are filed,” the policy states. When the database flags a conflict, the court must notify the judge. However, the decision on whether to recuse is up to the judge.
In the most notorious case, cited by the report, Guillermo Ramirez died at age 58 last year after fighting with cancer that his family believes he contracted from a DuPont chemical. Judge Joel Dubina, one of the three judges assigned to the case at the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, owned up to $15,000 worth of stock in DuPont. The panel unanimously affirmed a jury verdict in favor of DuPont in 2011.
