Wood’s years-long professional relationship with the attorney for Project Veritas, Robert Spolzino
Should Charles Wood have recused himself from serving as the presiding judge in Project Veritas v. New York Times given Wood’s years-long professional relationship with the attorney for Project Veritas, Robert Spolzino?
Although the mandatory recusal period had passed, for many there could still, at a minimum, seem to be an “appearance” of impropriety”, if not an actual conflict of interest, if Charles Wood were to preside over the case, which he did. (Two judges had recused themselves prior to Wood taking it.)
- Wood had worked for Spolzino’s law firm;[1]
- Wood’s wife had served as Spolzino’s Principal Clerk when he was an Associate Justice of the Appellate Division;[2]
- Wood (1998-2005)[3] and Spolzino (1997)[4] had both worked for Senator Nick Spano;
- Wood again crossed paths with Spolzino when he, Wood, worked on Senator Spano’s legal team[5] when he, Spano, was opposing Andrea Stewart-Cousins (now Democratic Majority Leader), in the 2004 election battle over the 35th NYS Senate seat. That case came before Spolzino[6] who was then a justice in the appellate division.
Spolzino ruled in favor of Spano, and against the Stewart-Cousins’ team’s request to continue counting votes.[7] The ruling was labeled a “silver bullet”[8] by a lawyer for the Spano campaign, Anthony J. Mangone[9]. The election outcome was decided by 18 votes, in Spano’s favor.[10] - Wood and Spolzino were, again in 2021, in a court case together. This time, Wood was the Supreme Court justice and Spolzino was the attorney representing Project Veritas.[11]
- Wood decided the case in favor of Spolzino’s client, Project Veritas,[12] in a decision derided by legal experts as “blatantly unconstitutional” and “an outrageous affront to the First Amendment.”[13] Wood’s decision was stayed by an appeals court.
________________________________________________________________