The New York Times wrote an editorial piece this week regarding last week’s decision by the United States Supreme Court’s denial to hear the case of Charles Dean Hood. Hood was convicted of murder in 1990 and sentenced to death; however, the prosecuting district attorney and judge in Hood’s trial had recently ended a romantic affair with one another. The Court’s denial has left many questioning the standards of ethics and fairness in today’s judicial system. The New York Times piece links the Court’s poor decision in the case of Charles Dean Hood, to a decision made last year regarding judicial impartiality relating to campaign financing. As the article states, ” The right to a fair hearing, before an impartial judge, is at the heart of the nation’s judicial system. If money raises a serious question about that impartiality, love seems to be at least as worrisome. The Supreme Court, sadly, failed in its duty to clearly draw that line.”
To view the entire New York Times article, click here.