On Thursday, August 7, 2025, CNYhomepage.com reported that New York State Supreme Court Justice Bernadette Clark, who is presiding over the murder case of Kaitlyn Conley, has decided to reserve her ruling on a motion for her recusal. The proceedings took place in Oneida County Court, where the motion was brought forth by Oneida County District Attorney Todd Carville.

The motion for recusal stems from allegations made by Carville, who claims that Justice Clark expressed biased opinions about the case during a social gathering last December. At that time, she had also sealed Conley’s court records. Justice Clark previously released Conley from custody on February 4, 2025, and Carville’s motion raised concerns regarding her impartiality in the ongoing trial.

During the court proceedings, Justice Clark denied Carville’s assertions of bias, affirming that she did not make any improper comments at the party. She stated that she was seated close to Carville during the event and asked him if he recalled their conversation, to which he responded negatively. This exchange led her to reinforce her stance against the claims of misconduct.

Justice Clark mentioned that on January 31, the appellate division had overturned Conley’s conviction, prompting her to inquire whether Carville or others from his office had discussed the ruling with former District Attorney Scott McNamara, as they share participation in a local golf league. She also questioned the delayed testimony from witnesses who only came forward in June 2025 regarding events from December 2024.

Carville expressed that filing the recusal motion was uncomfortable, yet he believed it was necessary for justice. He insisted that Justice Clark should step aside due to the alleged statements she made at the gathering, which he argued suggested a bias in her judgment. He provided written statements from two witnesses, including McNamara and Kevin Revere, Chief of Staff to Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente, who claimed that Clark expressed her belief in Conley’s innocence and implicated Dr. Mary Yoder’s husband in the case.

While Carville acknowledged that he and Clark were seated at the same table during the party, he stated that he could not recall sitting directly next to her, which he argued limited his exposure to any alleged remarks made.

In defense of Justice Clark, attorney Melissa Swartz, representing Kaitlyn Conley, contended that there is no active indictment against her client since the case had been dismissed and sealed as of February 4. She argued that this rendered the recusal motion moot. Swartz also emphasized her inability to verify the credibility of the statements made by McNamara and Revere, as she was not present at the party, nor did she have any prior relationship with them.

Swartz pointed out that even if the alleged comments were made, they did not constitute a sufficient basis for Justice Clark’s recusal. She noted that Justice Clark had already reviewed the case before the party, suggesting that any opinions formed were based on the evidence available at the time rather than bias.

Currently, the proceedings in the Conley case remain sealed. The District Attorney’s Office has indicated its intention to appeal Justice Clark’s prior decision from June 10, although no formal appeal has yet been filed.

 

 

Source: CNYhomepage.com