AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.
I'm Amy Goodman in Chicago. Juan González is in New York.
Juan?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We go now to Arkansas, where the state executed four men in April,
marking the first executions there since 2005.
Arkansas had initially planned to execute 11 men during the month of April, but several
of those executions were blocked by the courts.
One of the judges who blocked the state’s efforts is now facing calls to be impeached.
On April 14th, state Judge Wendell Griffen issued a temporary restraining order halting
six of the executions over concerns that the state used false pretenses to obtain a key
drug slated to be used in the executions.
Following his ruling, Judge Wendell Griffen took part in an anti-death penalty protest
outside the Governor’s Mansion organized by his church to mark Good Friday.
In addition to being a judge, Griffen is an ordained Baptist minister.
AMY GOODMAN: Calls for Judge Wendell Griffen’s impeachment began soon after photographs from
the vigil appeared in the press showing him lying down on a cot with his hands bound together
as though he were a condemned man on a gurney.
The state’s high court soon barred Judge Griffen from hearing cases involving executions,
capital punishment and the state’s lethal injection protocol.
Then, last week, lawmakers set the stage to impeach Judge Griffen.
If they succeed, Griffen would become the first judge ever impeached in the state of
Arkansas.
While Wendell Griffen’s future as a judge is in question, he has opted not to stay silent.
Today he joins us in his first national television interview.
Judge Wendell Griffen, welcome to Democracy Now!
Can you talk about your actions—your ruling in a death penalty case and then going outside
to protest outside the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion?
Welcome to Democracy Now!
JUDGE WENDELL GRIFFEN: Thank you, Amy.
Thank you, Juan.
First of all, let me correct the narrative.
The case in which I ruled was not a death penalty case.
The case involved a complaint by a distributor of a pharmaceutical product, a drug, that
had—that drug obtained by the Arkansas Department of Corrections under false pretenses.
The drug was obtained, and the distributor sought to get the drug back.
The distributor filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on Good Friday, the afternoon
of Good Friday, shortly before I was going to attend a prayer vigil that our congregation
had scheduled in front of the Governor’s Mansion.
Based on the law that governs contracts and property—basically, property law—I found
that the distributor had a case and that the distributor’s chance of having its property
returned was likely to be destroyed, unless I entered temporary restraining order.
I entered the temporary restraining order, went to the prayer vigil, and the ruling was
incorrectly reported as a ruling as blocking executions.
Actually, the effect of the temporary restraining order was to simply hold the status quo, to
simply say to everybody, "Listen, do not dispose of this drug until we can get all of the parties
before me and we can sort this out, whether or not the Department of Corrections correctly
has the right to hold this drug, or whether or not this drug in fact was wrongly obtained."
The evidence before me showed it was wrongly obtained.
And so I did what I was supposed to do.
Now, I also went to the—I also went to the prayer vigil.
That’s what I’m supposed to do.
I’m a pastor.
Good Friday is the religious holiday before Easter when followers of Jesus commemorate
the death of Jesus.
Our congregation had planned to have our Good Friday observance in front of the Governor’s
Mansion before this motion was submitted to me.
And so, as a pastor, as a follower of Jesus, I went to the Good Friday prayer vigil.
And as a follower of Jesus, in solidarity with the religion of Jesus, I lay on a cot
to show my solidarity with Jesus, who was a condemned man, condemned by the Roman Empire
to death.
And so that’s what happened.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Judge Griffen, were you surprised by the firestorm that followed your participation
in that vigil, and the calls for your impeachment?
JUDGE WENDELL GRIFFEN: I was surprised that there was such a refusal to even ask about
the facts.
The case, as I mentioned earlier, was not a death penalty case.
It was a case about the return of wrongfully obtained property.
I was surprised that people did not understand that no matter what my views are on the death
penalty, the law on the right to get your property back is the law on getting your property
back.
And no matter who the judge is, that law has to be followed.
As a matter of fact, after the Arkansas Supreme Court removed me from the case, the judge
who took that case after me heard the same case, heard the same facts and ruled the same
way.
So, the issue is not what one’s view is or what people want one’s view to be about
capital punishment.
The issue is whether or not a judge will follow the law regardless of how he or she feels
about an issue.
I did that.
Now, what surprised me is that people who claim to believe in the integrity of judiciary
and judicial independence now somehow believe that judicial independence is a threat, so
that they believe that judges who follow the law should be impeached.
That surprises me.
And really, it disappoints me.
AMY GOODMAN: Judge Griffen, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge told KTHV it was inappropriate
for you to participate in the Good Friday protest against the death penalty.
She suggested it impacted your decision to grant a temporary restraining order on the
use of the execution drug.
This is what she said.
ATTORNEY GENERAL LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Those actions are inappropriate, and that’s why we have
asked the Supreme Court to vacate Judge Griffen’s temporary restraining order, and that it is
inappropriate for Judge Griffen to be on this case.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Judge Griffen, state Senator Trent Garner questioned whether your views
on the death penalty threaten your ability to be fair and impartial as a judge.
This is Garner speaking to Fox 16.
.
SEN.
TRENT GARNER: Making a public statement, a protest, in front of the Governor’s Mansion
is unacceptable.
It’s a disgrace to the judiciary system.
AMY GOODMAN: So I wanted to get your response to both of these people, Judge Griffen, and
also if you can describe the scene outside the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion when you
did lay down on that cot.
JUDGE WENDELL GRIFFEN: Let’s talk about the scene.
First of all, members of our congregation were present at the Governor’s Mansion.
There were also other persons present, other persons who were protesting the death penalty.
They all had a right to be there.
Our congregation had no right to chase off other people.
And other people had no right to expect that our congregation would not be present.
And, in fact, our congregation led the protesters in singing "This Little Light of Mine" and
"Amazing Grace."
Those are songs of our faith.
And so, we did, as the followers of Jesus’ congregation, what we had a right to do.
And as a judge, I did what I had a right to do as a citizen, by practicing my faith.
That’s not disgraceful.
That’s American.
That’s Democratic.
We believe, because of the First Amendment, that every person has the right to live out
his or her conscience.
As a judge, I have an obligation to follow the law.
That means that when a case comes before me, I have an obligation, as a judge, to apply
the law that applies to that state, no matter what my personal views may be on an issue.
It is not disgraceful for a judge to have views one way or the other way about capital
punishment or anything else.
It is not disgraceful for a judge who holds views to hold those views and decide cases
involving those issues.
What is inappropriate is for people to believe that when a judge decides a case according
to the law, he or she should somehow be suspected as not being faithful to the law simply because
he or she is faithful to their faith.
"Faithful to faith" and "faithful to law" are not mutually exclusive terms.
We can be faithful to our faith and faithful to the law, and the law can be followed even
when we, as a people of faith, find questions about the law.
And I think that’s something that we have to understand.
Now, let me speak about Attorney General Rutledge.
Attorney General Rutledge represented the Department of Corrections, the governor of
Arkansas and the director of the Department of Corrections in the lawsuit in which the
distributor was trying to get its drug back.
If Attorney General Rutledge believed that I was not qualified to decide the case, she
had an obligation, as a lawyer, to bring that issue up before me.
She didn’t do so.
She did not tell me she was bringing the issue before the Supreme Court when she did that.
The Supreme Court did not tell me that it was considering Attorney General Rutledge’s
motion to disqualify me when it did so.
The Supreme Court did not give me an opportunity to tell the Supreme Court what the facts were,
before it removed me from the case and disqualified me from hearing all death penalty cases in
Arkansas or any case involving the death penalty.
That’s unfair, because no matter how thinly you pour it, every pancake’s got at least
two sides.
And part of what a judge is supposed to do is hear all the sides.
It’s unethical for judges to refuse to hear the sides simply because one side doesn’t
want the other side heard.
And it’s unethical for a lawyer who’s supposed to be representing the judges—the
attorney general of Arkansas represents judges—to basically go behind a judge’s back and try
to have a judge removed, without even telling the judge that she’s doing so and giving
the judge opportunity—a chance to hire their own lawyer and set the record straight on
what the facts are.
So, I am not concerned about my conduct.
I’m very concerned about the conduct of the attorney general and the conduct of our
Supreme Court, because, ethically, our justice system depends upon people trusting that our
officials will follow the law.
And when the attorney general of Arkansas doesn’t follow the law, when the Supreme
Court doesn’t follow the rules that say that every dispute must be heard by all sides,
people are going to have questions.
If they will not follow the procedures when it affects a judge, how can they expect the
procedure to be followed when it affects people who are ordinary citizens?
So I’m concerned about that.
And I think we should all be concerned about that.
Now, as to Senator Garner, I think that we should all be concerned about the notion that
a legislator believes that it’s something somehow undemocratic for people to think about
issues affecting public policy.
What’s undemocratic about practicing your faith?
What’s disgraceful about living according to your faith?
And what’s disgraceful about following the law even when you have to follow the law and
have questions about an issue involving the law?
By point of fact, I followed the law in another case involving the death penalty where I refused
to allow an amended complaint to challenge the Arkansas death penalty case, because the
Arkansas Supreme Court had said the death penalty inmates could no longer challenge
the constitutionality of the death penalty.
I followed the law in that case, even though I oppose the death penalty.
So, when Trent Garner says to me, and to the world, "Judge Griffen is disgraceful," I don’t
understand how he defines "disgrace," because, quite frankly, by following the Supreme Court’s
ruling, I disprove his claim of disgrace.
By following the Supreme Court’s ruling, I disprove Attorney General Rutledge’s notion
that I can’t follow the law.
And by not allowing me to tell the Supreme Court that, the Supreme Court basically has
prevented me from letting the record be made clear.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Judge Griffen, this is not the first time you’ve been involved, obviously,
in controversy over your personal views.
You’ve been—you’re a native of Little Rock, Arkansas.
You’ve openly voiced support for raising the minimum wage, for opposition to the war
in Iraq and opposition to demonizing of immigrants and LGBT people.
Have you—could you talk about the reactions you’ve gotten in the past to your personal
views?
JUDGE WENDELL GRIFFEN: Thank you, Juan.
I think, really, that is what we’re really talking about here.
The issue is not whether or not I followed the law on Good Friday.
The issue really is—and I think Trent Garner has made this very clear.
Senator Trent Garner has made it clear.
He has a long-standing objection to the fact that Wendell Griffen, as a person, and Wendell
Griffen, as a judge, holds views about public policy and life that he finds objectionable.
I believe that people should earn a living wage, and I’m not afraid to say so.
I believe that it is wrong for us to demonize immigrants, for us to pick on our LGBTQ brothers
and sisters, for us to marginalize people because they are different.
I supported marriage equality.
I am glad that we have finally in Arkansas embraced the notion that all persons are entitled
to live out their love openly and honestly without being demonized for it and having
to be forced to live in the shadows.
There are people who find my perspective on life and on faith abhorrent.
They have a right to do that.
But they don’t have a right as public officials to punish me or to try to punish anybody else
simply because they disagree with what I view life should be.
I think that we, as public officials, have a responsibility to honor the freedom in this
society to disagree.
That’s a wonderful thing.
And it is something very dishonorable—we have a word for it, "tyranny"—something
very dishonorable when we use power to punish people with whom we disagree.
And so, this issue involving impeachment is nothing that I need to think about, other
than simply the latest effort to punish a judge, a black judge—I will say it, a black
judge—with whom the white power structure in Arkansas disagrees.
And I am a black judge and a black preacher.
And just like the power structure disagreed with Martin King and found him objectionable,
the power structure in Arkansas disagrees with Wendell Griffen and finds me objectionable.
But I think that the important thing for me to remember is, if I am to be faithful to
the law, I’ve got to follow the law, no matter whether the people agree with me or
not, or whether people approve of me or not.
If I’m going to be faithful to my faith, I’ve got to live true to my faith, even
if people find my faith objectionable and even if they’re willing to punish me for
it.
And I’ve got to be willing to say, "If you want to punish me for my faith, I’m going
to live out my faith.
You can decide whether to punish me."
AMY GOODMAN: Judge Griffen, we want to thank you so much for being with us.
Judge Wendell Griffen, judge of the 6th Circuit for Pulaski County in Arkansas.
This is Democracy Now!
Stay with us.