Last July, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled unanimously that
Judge Glenn Thompson had erred by dropping charges against Daniel
Wade Moore. A second trial was ordered. On February 2, 2007, the
State filed a petition to recuse Judge Thompson.
Our hope for justice for Karen depends entirely on this recusal.
Judge Thompson, given a second chance, will simply drop the charges
against Moore again and there will be no appeal available to the State.
Judge Thompson doesn't remember the seven million to one DNA but
has vivid memories of Don Valeska that never happened. Judge
Glenn Thompson can do exactly the same thing he did two years ago:
disregard the facts, disregard the law, and turn Daniel Wade Moore
loose--this time forever shielded from prosecution for what he did to
Karen. And Thompson will do it, if he is not recused.
The law says that Judge Thompson should be recused if a party to
the case could reasonably believe that the judge is biased, or has even
shown the appearance of bias. I am a party to the case, by law--a
fact he has consistently disregarded. Judge Thompson disregarded the
rules of evidence, and my family has been prevented from seeing any
of our videos of Karen. Judge Thompson disregarded the rape shield
law, and allowed an utterly unethical character assaassination of the
victims. Judge Thompson disregarded the Constitution of the State of
Alabama and the Victims Rights Amendment, and I was thrown out of
the hearing to consider dropping the charges against Moore. Judge
Thompson disregarded The Supreme Court of the United States, and
Daniel Wade Moore walked free. Judge Thompson even disregarded
his own word by releasing Moore at 4:45 on a Friday afternoon
without notifying the State. Finally, Judge Thompson disregards the
DNA entirely--the absolute heart of the case.
After all this, I would be unreasonable to conclude anything but the
fact that Judge Thompson is biased. He is blatantly, openly biased,
and has been so from the beginning. Given the chance, he will turn
Daniel Wade Moore loose again, for the same reasons he did the first
time. And although almost no one knows it, there is NO APPEAL if
Judge Thompson simply rules there is insufficient evidence and turns
the spawn loose.
Judge Thompson claimed Valeska's phone went off "at least six
times in open Court." A search of the trial transcript reveals two
times that cell phones went off:
During the 911 call testimony, when I was out of the room.
During jury instruction, when Thompson threatened Valeska with
jail, and claimed it was the "tenth time" it had gone off.
I was also present when Powell's phone went off, but it somehow
So I was wrong when I said phones went off twice. There were
Judge Thompson was wrong in open Court when he called it the
tenth time, and he is wrong when he claims now it was at least six
times. And the claim Valeska was talking on the phone in open
Court numerous times is preposterous.
The victims want a fair trial. It's very likely we won't get a trial at
all, unless Thompson is recused. Because the State of Alabama v
Daniel Wade Moore has nothing to do with whether a prosecutor's
cell phone went off two, six, or ten times. It has to do with seven
and a half million to one, 500 to one, and 500 to one.