“Justice delayed is justice denied,” British prime minister William E. Gladstone stated in an 1868 speech.
Our American justice system is predicated on the idea that a key component of fairness for the accused and the state alike is the timely consideration of facts, motions, and even the timeliness of a trial itself.
Early last week, David Roberson and his wife Anna Roberson filed an order asking the state supreme court to compel Circuit Court Judge Tamara Harris Johnson to rule on the pending motions related to their case against Drummond Coal and Balch & Bingham law firm.
The filing (Petition for Mandamus V1) lays out their case for action from the supreme court saying, “Under Alabama law, a delay of more than six months in deciding a matter is presumptively unreasonable. Indeed, every judge must file a report, twice yearly, listing all “matters which have been under submission or advisement for a period of six months or longer.” Ala. Canons Jud. Ethics 3(A)(5). For any “matter or case” listed, “the report shall give … the reasons for the failure of the judge to decide such matters or cases.” 3
Adding insult to injury for her overdue delays, Judge Johnson filed a fraudulent affidavit stating that she didn’t have any cases that had been held over longer than six months.
The motion states, “Under the Alabama Constitution, “justice shall be administered without … delay.” Ala. Const. § 13. The Rules of Civil Procedure secure the right to a “speedy … determination,” Ala. R. Civ. P. 1(c), and the Canons of Judicial Ethics require a judge to act “promptly.” Ala. Canon Jud. Ethics 3(A)(5). Judge Johnson has not acted promptly; she has not acted at all. Aside from denying the Robersons’ motion to recuse her, she has not ruled on any motion since May 17, 2019 – when she stayed discovery [Exhibit 29]. This delay is abhorrent to the Alabama Constitution and the administration of justice. The Robersons have a “clear legal right” to a decision in their case, and Judge Johnson has “an imperative duty” to render one.”
Summarizing the situation concisely, the motion by the Robersons puts it all in perspective, “In summary, almost fourteen months have elapsed since the “first motions” were filed, and Judge Johnson has not ruled on any of those motions. Almost eight months have elapsed since the “second motions” were filed, and again, Judge Johnson has not ruled on any of those motions. The Robersons have a “clear legal right” to a decision from Judge Johnson.”
