In a case that underscores the significance of impartiality in the judicial system, a Black defendant, Leron Liggins, has been granted a new trial following a 3-0 decision by a penal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The decision was based on the controversial comments made by U.S. District Judge Stephen J. Murphy III during a January 2020 hearing. The judge’s remarks, which included the statement that Liggins “looks like a criminal,” sparked accusations of bias and prejudgment, leading to questions about the fairness of the trial proceedings.

Liggins’s legal journey began in February 2018 when he was indicted by a federal grand jury in Michigan on a charge of conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute. He was also implicated in a separate drug case in Kentucky. As the cases were assigned to Judge Murphy, a series of delays and legal maneuvers ensued, further complicating the process.

During a hearing in January 2020, as Liggins parted ways with his second attorney, Judge Murphy expressed his frustration with the case’s prolonged duration and Liggins’s decision to switch attorneys. In a statement that later proved controversial, Murphy asserted, “This guy looks like a criminal to me. This is what criminals do.” The judge subsequently apologized, insisting that he could preside over the trial fairly despite his comments.

However, the federal appeals court panel was not convinced by Murphy’s later assertion of impartiality. In a unanimous decision, the panel highlighted that Murphy’s comments could be interpreted as demonstrating a prejudgment of Liggins’s guilt. The remarks raised concerns about the potential for racial bias, as Liggins is a Black man and Murphy is White.

The panel’s opinion emphasized that even if the judge’s intentions were free of racial bias, the optics of his comments were damaging enough to raise suspicions of partiality. Judge Eric Clay of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Murphy’s words had created an appearance of impropriety that could erode public confidence in the judicial process.

Wade Fink, Liggins’s attorney, lauded the decision as a stand for justice. He acknowledged that regardless of Murphy’s true intentions, the judge’s comments were unacceptable due to their potential impact on the fairness of the trial. Fink urged the public to focus on the implications of the words spoken in a criminal case rather than speculating about Murphy’s character.

Despite the controversy, Judge Murphy did not respond to requests for comment on the matter.

Liggins’s legal odyssey involved numerous twists and turns, including the termination of his first attorney in March 2019 and subsequent delays in trial proceedings. In September of that year, an additional charge was added to his case, leading to shifts in his legal strategy. The court set a trial date for March 2020, but before it arrived, Liggins parted ways with his second attorney, which prompted the incendiary remarks from Judge Murphy.

The appeals panel conducted a thorough review of the case and concluded that the judge’s conduct during the January 2020 hearing was not in line with the decorum and impartiality essential to the administration of justice. Clay, writing for the panel, expressed heightened concern due to the fact that the prejudicial remark was directed at Liggins, an African American man.

While Murphy attempted to mitigate the damage with an apology in October 2021, the panel found that the apology was insufficient to rectify the problem. Given the gravity of the situation and the potential erosion of public trust in the judicial process, the panel vacated Liggins’s conviction and sentence. The ruling declared that the risk of undermining confidence in the legal system was significant due to Murphy’s remarks, which made fair judgment appear impossible.

Liggins is now slated to receive a new trial, though the date for the trial has yet to be determined. Once a new judge is assigned to the case, Liggins’s legal team intends to request pre-trial release for their client.

The case is United States of America v. Leron Liggins, Docket # 22-1236, published August 3, 2023.