Howard Witt gives us a brief overview of Friday’s hearing in Jena. Although there was no ruling on the motion to recuse Judge JP Mauffray, the hearing is being viewed in a positive light by attorneys and the Jena 6 families. Mauffray admitted that he has made repeated comments that appear to pre-judge the defendants; something a judge cannot do.
Lawyers in Jena 6 case seek judge’s ouster
Tribune correspondent
8:40 AM CDT, May 31, 2008
HOUSTON—Lawyers for the five remaining defendants facing trial in the racially divisive Jena 6 incident in Louisiana presented evidence Friday of what they said was bias on the part of the judge presiding over the cases and sought his removal.
After four hours of testimony, a visiting judge appointed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to hear the recusal motion against LaSalle Parish District Judge J.P. Mauffray asked for more evidence and postponed a ruling until at least July.
Defense attorneys have long asserted that the white-dominated justice system in the small central Louisiana town was biased against their African-American clients: six high school students who were initially charged with attempted murder in the December 2006 beating of a white classmate.
That beating capped months of racial tensions set off after three white students hung nooses from a tree at the high school. Last September, more than 20,000 demonstrators traveled to Jena for a march to demonstrate their concerns about the case against the six defendants.
District Atty. Reed Walters reduced the charges against the black youths to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy, and the first defendant to face trial, Mychal Bell, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of second-degree battery last December.
According to some of those present during Friday’s hearing, defense attorneys testified that Mauffray had made prejudicial comments to them about their clients on multiple occasions. David Utter, who represents defendant Jesse Ray Beard, said Mauffray had labeled the Jena 6 defendants “a violent bunch” and had asserted that “crime has gone down” in the months after the youths were jailed on the beating charges.
When he was called to the witness stand, those present said, Mauffray appeared to concede that he had made such statements, testifying at various points that “I probably said that” and “I might have said that.” But the judge maintained that he had not formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused youths.
Mauffray “has proven through his testimony that he does harbor prejudice and prejudgment in these cases,” said Derwyn Bunton, an attorney for Theodore Shaw. “We want a fair trial with a fair judge, and the hearing illustrated we cannot have that with Judge Mauffray.”
Friends of Justice 