On Monday, March 17, 2025, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by former Decatur police officer Mac Bailey Marquette, who sought to compel Morgan Circuit Court Judge Charles B. Elliott to either reverse his refusal to step down from Marquette’s murder case or hold a hearing to further examine the recusal request. The court also rejected Marquette’s accompanying motion to pause the trial proceedings while his petition was under review.

Marquette’s legal troubles began on January 4, 2024, when he was charged with murder in Morgan County. A year later, on January 7, 2025, he requested immunity from prosecution under an Alabama self-defense statute, with a hearing scheduled for March 25, 2025. However, on February 14, 2025, Marquette asked Judge Elliott to recuse himself, alleging the judge had engaged in improper private conversations that suggested bias. According to Marquette, reliable sources informed him that Judge Elliott had spoken with a police lieutenant about the immunity request, reportedly stating he would deny it due to the case’s prominence, concerns for his family’s safety, and potential political consequences for his reelection.

Judge Elliott scheduled a hearing on the recusal motion for February 18, 2025. The night before, on February 17, he called Marquette’s attorney, Brett Bloomston, to discuss the motion and ask if witnesses would be available. Following this call, Bloomston amended the recusal motion, arguing that the call itself was an inappropriate private communication and that Judge Elliott had admitted to discussing the recusal issue with other judges beforehand.

On February 18, Judge Elliott denied the recusal motion without holding a hearing. In his order, he included a sworn statement rejecting the claims of improper talks with the police lieutenant and clarifying that his discussions with other judges were limited to procedural matters, not the case’s substance. He also acknowledged calling the district attorney after speaking with Bloomston but maintained that both calls were made to ensure procedural clarity, not to influence the case.

Marquette then filed his petition with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, asserting that Judge Elliott’s actions—speaking with other judges, contacting defense counsel, and reaching out to the district attorney—amounted to improper conduct warranting recusal. He asked the appeals court to either order Judge Elliott to step aside or require an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

In its ruling, the appeals court noted that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary measure, granted only when a trial court clearly abuses its discretion. The court outlined the requirements for such a writ: a clear legal right to the requested relief, a duty for the judge to act, no other legal remedy, and proper jurisdiction. The court emphasized that judges are presumed impartial, and the burden falls on the party seeking recusal to prove otherwise with evidence of bias strong enough to raise reasonable doubts about fairness.

The court found that Marquette provided no concrete evidence, such as affidavits, to support his claim of an improper conversation with the police lieutenant, leaving only Judge Elliott’s denial as evidence. It also determined that the judge’s communications with colleagues and counsel did not automatically suggest bias under Alabama law, as not all private discussions require recusal—only those indicating personal prejudice from outside sources. Additionally, the court upheld Judge Elliott’s decision to deny the motion without a hearing, stating that trial judges can dismiss baseless recusal claims without further proceedings to avoid unnecessary burdens.

The unanimous decision, authored by Presiding Judge Mary B. Windom, concluded that Marquette did not meet the high threshold for a writ of mandamus.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.