A woman who was convicted in a case in which the prosecutor and the judge worked together is seeking a Supreme Court review of what her lawyers have called a constitutional violation resulting from a “perverse conflict of interest.”
It is the Institute for Justice that filed a request for the high court to hear the case involving Erma Wilson,
She “had her life turned upside down after a conviction in which her prosecutor also worked for the judge presiding over her case.”
The institute called it “one of the most brazen and obvious examples of prosecutorial abuse in modern American history.” However, it said, prosecutor Ralph Petty never has been held accountable.
“Criminal proceedings have three main actors: the defense on one side, the prosecution on the other, and the judge in the middle to ensure fair and impartial justice. At least, that is how every criminal proceeding is supposed to work,” the institute said.
“But for Erma, that equation was shortened to just two – with Petty working against her as both the prosecutor and on behalf of the judge. For 20 years, now-retired (and disbarred, for his actions giving rise to this case) Ralph Petty spent his days as a prosecutor for Midland County and his nights as a law clerk for the judges he practiced before,” the institute noted.
Besides collecting $250,000 in the process, the arrangement gave Petty the opportunity to “shape judicial … rulings in his favor” and “gain access to confidential defense materials.”
“This perverse conflict of interest was a blatant violation of the constitutional rights of the more than 300 criminal defendants whose cases were tainted by Petty acting as a prosecutor and de facto judge in the same case. All the while, the county, the district attorney’s office and the judges knew the prosecution was being unfairly advantaged and said nothing,” the institute charged.
The legal team reported the charges against Wilson were relatively minor and she never served jail time, but the conviction upset her plan to become a nurse, as the sentence turned into a “permanent punishment.”
Most recently in her action against the government, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said she was not allowed to bring a case over the constitutional violations, although six of the court’s 18 judges “emphatically” disagreed.
“When state officials violate the federal constitution, federal courts are supposed to step in to remedy and prevent abuses just like this,” explained IJ Attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili. “In Erma’s case that responsibility has been shirked, but we hope and expect the Supreme Court to take the dissenters up on their request to set this case aright.”
