The federal district judge hearing a racial profiling case against Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been asked to remove himself due to “unethical misconduct and conflict of interest” by a whistleblower.
The move comes after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday refused to intervene and order his removal. Such an action would have been considered extraordinary.
The emergency petition filed with the 9th Circuit asked that Judge G. Murray Snow be disqualified “for alleged egregious and continuing ethical violations and extra-judicial bias and prejudice in the ongoing contempt proceedings.”
Snow is the judge, who two years ago ruled Sheriff Arpaio was guilty of racially profiling Latinos.
The judge now faces accusations that his wife blurted out in his courtroom her husband’s intentions to bring Arpaio down.
As reported by World Net Daily:
The new development took place as part of hearings to determine whether Arpaio and his top aides should be held in contempt of court for violating a judge’s order to stop conducting immigration patrols. Arpaio said his lawyer, Tim Casey, had hired someone to investigate Snow’s wife after she apparently told witnesses her husband didn’t want to see the sheriff re-elected.
According to a statement released with the motion to remove the federal judge, “Judge Snow has unethically turned the case into a personal vindictive ‘witch-hunt’ to allegedly cover up his wife’s statements quoting the judge as intending to harm Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s chances for reelection in 2016 as sheriff of Maricopa County through the contempt proceedings which Judge Snow has been holding.”
WND notes: “The spark that started the dispute came when ‘Judge Snow’s wife announced to the Grissom family, as acquaintances, in a Someburros restaurant In Arizona that … Judge Snow … was determined to conduct the litigation … in such a way as to ensure that Sheriff Joe Arpaio would not be re-elected as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in 2016.’”
The matter is now back in Judge Snow’s hands; however, judicial malfeasance or prejudice can be raised again if the case is appealed.
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth