State v. Wakefield
324 Ga. App. 587
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Five appeals and two cross-appeals arise from October 2008 sexual encounter between Judge Paschal English and public defender Kimberly Cornwell, who represented five defendants in Fayette County Superior Court cases from 2008–2010.
- Judge English resigned from the bench on April 23, 2010; defendants amended motions for new trial arguing the relationship violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and compromised counsel and due process.
- Trial court, in October 2012, granted new trials in all five cases, finding the affair had continued during the trials and required Judge English's voluntary recusal, and that failure to recuse violated the Code and amounted to structural error.
- Appellate court affirmed the new-trial grants and dismissed cross-appeals as moot, reviewing de novo the legal questions while adopting the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous.
- Evidence at hearings included a 2008 eyewitness sexual encounter, transfer of cases to English’s courtroom, and later indications (e.g., Reno trip and banter at trial) suggesting the relationship persisted through March 2010.
- Court concluded that Canon 3(E)(1) of the Code required disqualification and that English’s nondisclosure violated judicial ethics, warranting new trials for all five defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the relationship continue through the trials? | State contends the record supports ongoing relationship. | English/Cornwell argue only a single encounter alleged. | Yes; the record supports continuation through March 2010. |
| Did failure to disclose the relationship violate Canon 3(E)(1) and require recusal? | State asserts broader disqualification rules apply; nondisclosure undermines impartiality. | English argues no disqualifying interest and permissible non-disclosure in context. | Violation of Canon 3(E)(1); recusal required. |
| Was the error harmless or did it warrant new trials as a remedy? | State claims lack of impartiality compromised trials; harmless error not applicable. | English argues any error was harmless or mischaracterized as structural. | Not harmless; new trials appropriate remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson-Cook Co. v. City of Savannah, 291 Ga. 114 (2012) (judicial integrity and recusal importance; appearance of impartiality)
- Davis v. State, 255 Ga. 598 (1986) (privilege against self-incrimination prevents inference from invocation)
- Stephens v. Stephens, 249 Ga. 700 (1981) (broader disqualification standards in Code than OCGA 15-1-8)
- Jones County v. A Mining Group, 285 Ga. 465 (2009) (Canon 3 impartiality standard; appearance of lack of impartiality)
- Kurtz v. State, 233 Ga. App. 186 (1998) (integration of OCGA § 15-1-8 and Canon 3 in disqualification analysis)
- Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10 (2012) (highly deferential standard for factual findings on abuse of discretion)
- Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, 428 Mass. 543 (1998) (examples of ethical violations involving trial conduct and relationships)
- In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) (due process concerns for a fair trial in a fair tribunal)
- Davis v. State, 255 Ga. 598 (1986) (privilege against self-incrimination; no inference from assertion)