Shabazz, second from left, with Sussman, at the bench with Judge Williams
(Pool photo: Daily Freeman/Patricia Doxsey)
KINGSTON – Kingston’s trial of the year just got postponed until early October, when defense attorneys made a motion for the judge to recuse himself over appearance of impropriety, due to his personal history with the accused.
Civil rights activist Ismail Shabazz, of midtown Kingston, faces multiple felony charges of weapons sales to an FBI informant, spanning a year-long undercover investigation. Through attorney Michael Sussman, he is offering an entrapment defense.
At the first appearance hearing on Wednesday, Ulster County Court Judge Donald Williams stated he wishes the proceedings to be open, fair and impartial. To those ends, he gave permission for media photography inside the courtroom, and allowed the hearing to be moved upstairs to a larger space to accommodate several dozen Shabazz supporters.
About 50 people were present to witness the hearing, mostly left-wing activists and family members.
Sussman was prepared to argue against an ex parte motion by the prosecution
for protective order against Shabazz, to restrict discovery. Instead
the matter got postponed until October 9, to allow the defense to submit
a formal written motion for recusal.
“The judge indicated previously that he has a knowledge of Mr. Shabazz by working with Shabazz previously,” Sussman explained. “In that sense, there’s an appearance, given what he [Williams] said, that perhaps that personal knowledge could influence, or appear to influence the proceedings, and that’s not something that should be, under the rules, allowed.”
Sussman said he didn’t want this to be construed as slamming Judge Williams.
“It’s intended to uphold the systemic integrity that we’re supposed to have here. Mr. Shabazz has indicated to me that the prior history between them could appear improper, therefore he feels it is best to have a judge who does not know him, and looking at this simply based on what’s in the record of the case, which is what a court is supposed to do.”
Once the recusal issue is resolved in October, the prosecution’s attempt to suppress discovery will be considered.
“We’re vigorously opposing it,” Sussman indicated. “The effort to limit is improper; certainly we need all the discovery on order to assess the case. It’s all material that under the rules we’re entitled to. The DA’s office fashioned an ex parte application. But we got it quickly, and we responded. The judge was surprised they did this paradoxical thing.”
“There are allegedly audios and videos of contacts, I’m assuming, between Shabazz and two people identified as an agent and informant,” Sussman said. “I don’t know what’s in it. They very clearly don’t want to turn it over to us. It is supposedly to protect people who’ve they’ve already publicly identified. The cat’s out of the bag already. Who are we protecting?”
Williams briefly took the prosecution to task, showing his displeasure with the discovery motion.
“I’m not even sure we should have this argument,” Williams said. “I’m still having some difficulties accepting an ex parte application that is logically inconsistent. I’m not sure why we’re here; I was hoping to hear from the DA.”
