# Ex Parte Bryant

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · March 22, 1996 · 675 So. 2d 552

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935807

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Thomas E. Bryant. (In Re State of Alabama v. Thomas E. Bryant).
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** March 22, 1996
- **Citations:** 675 So. 2d 552; 1996 WL 295079
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cobb
- **Judges:** Cobb, Taylor
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Ex Parte Bryant, 682 So. 2d 39 (1996).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935807

## Opinion text

I respectfully dissent from the majority's denial of the petition for writ of mandamus.
Canon 3(C)(1), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics states:
"A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might be questioned . . . ."
(Emphasis added.)
As stated in Ex parte Duncan , 638 So.2d 1332 (Ala. 1994), the pertinent question is, " 'Would a person of ordinary prudence in the judge's position, knowing all of the facts known to the judge, find that there is a reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality?' " 638 So.2d at 1334 , quoting Matter of Sheffield , 465 So.2d 350 , 356 (Ala. 1984)). The fact that the trial judge had been the district attorney and was a member of the bar, as was the petitioner, who was himself a prominent member of the bar, not to mention the fact that he had received a campaign contribution from the petitioner, would certainly give a "person of ordinary prudence" reason for questioning the judge's impartiality. This is not to say that I believe the judge is biased in favor of or against this petitioner; I do not. I do maintain, however, that the public would have reason to think otherwise.
Although I am quite sure that the petitioner has failed to meet the burden set in Rutledge v. State , 523 So.2d 1087
(Ala.Cr.App. 1987), I believe the wiser course of action would be for the trial judge, in circumstances such as the one present in this case, to grant a motion for recusal. Consequently, I must respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9935807. Public record. Not legal advice.