It is sometimes not easy for trial judges to decide on how to rule on a motion to recuse. Most of the current discussion about recusal is centered on recusing because of campaign donations. See for example Capperton v. A.T Massey Coal Co. 556 U.S. 868, 129 S.Ct. 2252 (2009). Aside from the fact that James “Whitey” Bulger  is a pretty notorious guy, the decision to remove the trial judge by a unanimous three judge panel of the First Circuit was written by former United States Supreme Court Judge David Souter. You can access the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.

Justice Souter wrote that the trial judge’s prior role as a prosecutor called his impartiality into question. “Our analysis of … relevant facts does not question either Judge Stearns’ ability to remain actually impartial or his sincerity in concluding that he is not biased against the defendant, nor do we draw any conclusion that he is biased,”  The opinion continued stating,

“Despite our respect for Judge Stearns and our belief in his sincerity, we are nonetheless bound to conclude that it is clear that a reasonable person might question the judge’s ability to preserve impartiality through the course of this prosecution,” the court held and ordered a new judge be assigned to the case

Mr. Bulger is facing trial on charges that he committed or ordered 19 murders in the 1970s and ’80s.  Judge Stearns had worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston in the 1980s, at a time when the FBI was investigating Bulger’s alleged role as leader of the city’s Winter Hill crime gang.

During the investigation into Bulger’s gang, prosecutorial duties for organized crime had been split between the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston and a second team, called the New England Organized Crime Strike Force.

Since the strike force had worked to develop the government’s case against Bulger, Judge Stearns had argued that his roles at the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not compromise his impartiality.

But in the opinion Justice Souter noted that the two teams had not been “free from communication”.

Souter said his decision reflected only that a person could reasonably question Stearns’ impartiality, and did not represent a conclusion that Judge Stearns was biased.