Jessie Stensland reports from the Island County Superior Court for the Whidbey News-Times. Read the whole story.
Summary by Perplexity AI
A Christmas party at Island County Superior Court Judge Christon Skinner’s home has become a flashpoint in the criminal case against former Island County GOP Vice Chair Tracy Abuhl, charged in a 2024 mask‑mandate dispute at the ballot‑counting center. Prosecutor Greg Banks sought Skinner’s recusal, arguing that co‑plaintiff Tim Hazelo’s attendance at the party, along with overlapping civil cases and shared discovery materials, created an appearance of conflict, particularly since Skinner and another judge had recused themselves from Hazelo’s case. Abuhl’s attorney countered that Banks was simply unhappy with a discovery ruling and that differing court decisions should be resolved on appeal, not by disqualifying a judge. Skinner denied the recusal request, finding no evidence of bias or disqualifying interest, and the case will proceed to a jury trial.
They Said It
In denying Banks’ motion, [Skinner] wrote that the prosecutor knew about the relationship between the two criminal cases for months but only asked for the recusal after an unfavorable ruling.
In his recent motion, Banks wrote that Tim Hazelo, Abuhl’s co-plaintiff in two related lawsuits with “the same operative facts,” was at a party for court personnel at Skinner’s home. Hazelo, who is married to a court staff member, was former chairperson of the Island County Republican Party and faced the same charges that Abuhl does.
Banks pointed out that both Skinner and Judge Carolyn Cliff recused themselves in the criminal case against Hazelo, which Banks wrote he inferred was because of Hazelo’s relationship with the superior court staff member. Skinner later affirmed the inference.
Skinner explained that both he and Judge Carolyn Cliff sponsored the Christmas party at his house. He said he doesn’t know Hazelo “from Adam.”
In his ruling, Skinner wrote that the recusal in Hazelo does not mandate recusal in Abuhl, even if he “reviews documents that may have been generated in connection with the Hazelo prosecution or civil suit.” He wrote that the prosecutor presented no evidence of personal bias, personal knowledge of evidentiary facts, financial interest or any other basis for disqualification under court rules.
