Hanh Thai Williams v. Succession of Fred Langford Houston

Whether Armand Roos’ participation as Plaintiff’s attorney and primary witness was procedurally and evidentiary concern a violation of Due Pro­ cess. Further, Roos’ familiarity with the trial judge and Petitioner’s two attorney witness by a hand­ shake and shoulder clasp in front of the jury, along with the admittedly false testimony of plaintiff’s accountant and accounting and the denial of right to present evidence was unfair and deprivation of Due Process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amend­ ment.

Judge Jeff Cox was the writing judge in the Loui­ siana Second Circuit Court of Appeals. At the time of the trial in District Court, Jeff Cox was running against a 20-year incumbent for the appellate court. Following the district court trial and verdict, Cox received campaign contributions from the Wiener, Wiess & Madison law firm, Roos and all the attorneys that worked on this case. Cox won the election and immediately became the writing Judge. The question presented is whether Judge Cox’s failure to disclose these contributions is vio­ lative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.