Left: U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III (via Justice Department). Right: Leron Liggins (via DOJ court filing).
A man who was told by the federal judge overseeing his case that he “looks like a criminal” has had his drug conviction and sentence vacated by a unanimous appeals court panel.
Leron Liggins was sentenced in March 2022 to more than a decade behind bars for drug conspiracy and possession. According to the Department of Justice, Liggins was behind a plan to distribute heroin by hiding it in suitcases flown around the country to eventually be sold in Michigan. Prosecutors say that Liggins also paid others to travel around the country with drugs and cash hidden in their luggage in order to sell the drugs in other states.
Liggins’ four-year journey to conviction started with his arrest in February 2018. By January 2020, Liggins was seeking to get his attorney — the second one he had — removed from the case. At a hearing in January 2020 for the attorney’s withdrawal, U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III made remarks about the defendant to the attorney he said wasn’t representing him adequately:
“This guy looks like a criminal to me,” Murphy, who is white, said about Liggins, who is Black. “This is what criminals do. This isn’t what innocent people, who want a fair trial do. He’s indicted in Kentucky. He’s indicted here. He’s alleged to be dealing heroin, which addicts, hurts and kills people, and he’s playing games with the Court.”
Murphy also said that he was “tired of this case” and “tired of this defendant.”
When Liggins tried to speak directly to the judge, he ordered the defendant to speak only through his attorney — the same one he was trying to have removed from the case.
On Thursday, three judges on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit unanimously found that Murphy’s remarks tainted the trial.
Circuit Court Judges Karen Nelson Moore, Eric Clay, and Andre Mathis said that the remarks from Murphy, a George W. Bush appointee who is listed as a contributor on the conservative Federalist Society website, warranted recusal.
“We are highly concerned by this remark, especially when directed toward Liggins, an African American man,” the judges wrote. “Even if one were to assume a lack of racial bias on the part of the district judge, the remark nevertheless raises the specter of such bias.”
The panel said that other remarks from Murphy about him being “tired” of the case and the defendant “served no purpose for courtroom administration, but rather constituted gratuitous commentary by the district judge about his opinion of Liggins and his feelings about Liggins’ case.”
The judges rubbished the government’s argument that Murphy’s frustration was “understandable” based on Liggins’ conduct during the case.
“To the contrary, we do not find the district judge’s conduct understandable in the least,” the judges wrote, adding that the “complexity or long duration of a criminal case gives no license to a district court to prejudge the defendant’s guilt or otherwise dispose of the case in any manner except through fair proceedings.”
More from Law&Crime: ‘Literally in bed together’: Judge’s ‘sexual relationship’ with prosecutor leads to murder conviction being overturned
The judges were especially troubled by Murphy’s refusal to allow Liggins to speak on his own behalf at the attorney withdrawal hearing.
“[T]he district court was well aware that, in Liggins’ view, [his lawyer] was not providing effective representation,” the judges wrote. “In such a proceeding, […] the district court should hear from the defendant. In this case, Liggins twice attempted to speak, and the district court refused both times, telling Liggins that if Liggins spoke anymore, he would have him ‘hauled out of here.””
Murphy apologized almost two years later, at the start of Liggins’ October 2021 trial, when he denied Liggins’ request that the judge recuse himself from the case.
“I’m sorry, I apologize for getting upset,” the judge said at the time, explaining that he thought that Liggins would be pleading guilty and “the colloquy was getting out of hand … and I lost my head.”
The judge then insisted that because he “got mad,” it didn’t mean that he’s “biased” against the defendant, and that he had given him the same “rights and opportunities” as other defendants had had. In fact, the judge said, his comments actually “evidence[d] lack of partiality.”
“I was mad, I was hostile, I was disapproving, and I regret it,” the judge added, explaining his reasoning for not recusing himself. “I made a mistake by yelling like that, but I wasn’t upset or concluding that Mr. Liggins was – was guilty of an offense or hostile or partial toward him. I concluded he was acting in a manner which was frankly obstructionist and making me mad.”
He also assured Liggins that he would “act in an impartial and fair manner going forward.”
This was inadequate, the judges said.
“Throughout the court proceedings over that time period, Liggins was most probably litigating under the impression that his case was being presided over by a judge who had, for all intents and purposes, sided against him and expressed open hostility toward him,” the opinion said.
The judges acknowledged that Liggins didn’t allege any bias from Murphy in his sentencing, but their concerns went beyond fairness for Liggins alone.
“In this case, the risk of undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process is significant,” the opinion says, adding that allowing Liggins’ conviction and sentence to stand would “substantially undermine the public’s confidence in the judicial process.”
The court vacated Liggins’ conviction and sentence and remanded the case for a new trial — and had strong words for the lower court judge himself.
“Instead of maintaining the decorum essential to the administration of justice, the district judge permitted himself to make personal and condemnatory remarks about the criminal defendant before him,” the opinion says. “Such remarks are wholly incompatible with the fair administration of justice.”
“Because we have determined that the district judge’s remarks in Liggins’ case ‘make fair judgment impossible,’ we order that this case be reassigned to another district judge on remand,” the judges added.
Read the circuit court’s ruling, below.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
