http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/09/supreme-court-rules-death-row-inmate-judge-recusal-case
In the dissent Roberts argued that his colleagues made a decision “on proverb rather than precedent”, and that Castille’s original role in the case was “unconnected” to the new claims brought by Williams about evidence.
“Williams does not allege that chief justice Castille had any previous knowledge of the contested facts at issue,” Roberts wrote, “or that he had previously made any decision on the questions raised by that petition.”
But Roberts was careful not to say whether he thought Castille should have recused himself anyway, noting “a number of state court decisions and ethics opinions that prohibit a prosecutor from later serving as judge in a case that he has prosecuted.”
Still, he argued: “it is up to state authorities – not this court – to determine whether recusal should be required.”
***
Castille was the Philadelphia district attorney who approved a death penalty prosecution of Williams, and refused to recuse himself when the inmate’s case reached the state high court in 2014. In 2012 a lower court had thrown out the death sentence on the grounds of evidence withheld by the prosecution, five days before Williams’ scheduled execution.
---------------
Roberts is sometimes breathtaking in his argumentation - it's up to state authorities - even though the judge was on the supreme court that wouldn't recuse himself! So how could the state have fixed this otherwise? The prosecution (now Supreme Court Judge) obviously knew about the withheld evidence, but wasn't going to have his past prosecution questioned - regardless of whether a man's life was on the line. And then says that the judge couldn't have known about the withheld evidence. Huh?
= new reply since forum marked as read