Gacho v. Wills

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his kidnapping and murder convictions based on claim that his trial judge (Thomas Maloney) labored under conflict of interest, where: (1) trial judge had operated under scheme where he solicited cash for acquittals; (2) defendant’s co-defendant had paid trial judge $10,000 for acquittal on same charges in joint trial with defendant; and (3) as investigation of trial judge progressed, trial judge reneged on deal with co-defendant and found co-defendant guilty of said charges, and jury found defendant guilty of said charges. Dist. Ct. erred in finding that defendant could only prevail by presenting evidence that trial judge held actual bias against defendant, and Dist. Ct. should have determined whether trial judge’s conflict of interest created constitutionally unacceptable likelihood of bias for average person sitting as judge. In this regard, Ct. of Appeals found that there was acute conflict between trial judge’s duty of impartiality and his personal interest in avoiding criminal liability associated with his scheme by ruling adversely against defendants created constitutionally unacceptable likelihood of compensatory bias in defendant’s case. Fact that defendant was found guilty by jury did not require different result. As such, defendant was entitled to new trial on charges that arose in 1982.