In my second year as a judge, the Massachusetts Trial Court hosted a delegation of Japanese jurists. One of them asked me how American courts ensure compliance with their orders. The question gave me pause because, in the United States, we largely take that compliance for granted. I told him it comes down to trust: our legal system operates on an unspoken social contract. Like Rousseau’s vision, we ask participants to surrender certain rights in exchange for fairness and justice. That’s why defendants show up, witnesses testify, and convicted individuals submit to sentencing without revolts or uprisings.

This trust, however, is fragile.

It hinges on the integrity of the judiciary—on judges who can be trusted to stand above bias, conflicts of interest, and the mere appearance of impropriety.

Federal law, under 28 U.S.C. § 455, sets a clear standard: any judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This includes situations where the judge, their spouse, or a dependent has a financial interest in the case. These aren’t just technicalities; they’re the bedrock of public trust in the judiciary.

This summer, the Second Circuit reaffirmed the importance of these principles in Litovich v. Bank of America Corporation (2024). There, a district court judge presided over a case involving a defendant in which his spouse owned stock, even though she divested before the judge ruled. The court held that even an unknowing conflict creates an unacceptable appearance of bias. The message was clear: when in doubt, recuse.

The Komitee case and the danger of eroding trust

This principle is at the heart of the current controversy surrounding Judge Eric Komitee in the trial of Carlos Watson and OZY Media. Judge Komitee’s financial entanglements with key players in the case are not speculative—they’re documented. He has millions invested in hedge funds that hold significant stakes in trial-related entities. He shares business ventures and personal connections with individuals who stand to gain or lose based on his rulings. Alarmingly, he retains the power to order restitution while potentially benefiting from it.

But this case isn’t just about finances. During the trial, Judge Komitee repeatedly excluded key defense witnesses and disregarded basic evidentiary rules, severely handicapping the defense. He intervened to assist prosecutors, sustained his own objections to defense questions, and issued flawed jury instructions that lowered the bar for conviction. Harvard Law Professor Ron Sullivan, co-counsel for Watson, described the proceedings as “the most egregious railroading” he’s seen in three decades.

I saw it firsthand. The trial was marred by a cascade of rulings that undermined the defense at every turn. In my 15 years as a judge, I’ve heard many recusal motions, but never have I seen such a clear case for stepping aside. Recusal here isn’t about an admission of guilt or bias. It’s about ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done.

Why Recusal Matters

Recusal doesn’t stall justice.

It doesn’t let crimes go unpunished. It simply means a different judge takes the reins—one untainted by conflicts or biases. The integrity of the judiciary depends on judges knowing when to step back. No single judge is indispensable.

Throughout my judicial career, I encountered moments where stepping aside was necessary. I didn’t take those decisions lightly, but I understood that protecting the court’s legitimacy mattered more than my personal pride or preferences.

The stakes in the Watson case are high—not just for the defendants, but for public trust in the legal system. If we, as judges, cling to cases where even a reasonable appearance of bias exists, we undermine the very foundation of our courts. As Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.” Judges must show the public, unequivocally, that justice is our only allegiance.

The Time for Action

Judge Komitee’s continued involvement in this case risks eroding trust not just in this trial but in the judiciary as a whole. With two critical posttrial motions pending—a Rule 29/33 motion highlighting the jury instructions that eased the path to conviction, and a recusal motion detailing the judge’s conflicts—this is a defining moment.

The judiciary is a cornerstone of democracy, but it only works if we, as judges, guard its legitimacy fiercely. This isn’t about politics, ego, or even personal conduct. It’s about the public’s right to a fair and impartial judiciary.

It’s time for Judge Komitee to step aside. It’s time for the court to let go, and for justice to be served without question or compromise.

Shannon Frison is a former justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court.