Laserfiche WebLink
at 872-73. For context, Blankenship's contributions exceeded the <br /> total amount spent by all of Benjamin's other supporters and was <br /> $1 million more than the amount raised by the other two <br /> candidates combined. Id. at 873. Benjamin won the election, and, <br /> when Blankenship appealed the jury verdict, the opposing party <br /> submitted multiple requests for now-Justice Benjamin to recuse <br /> himself given his financial ties to Blankenship. Id. at 873-74. <br /> Benjamin refused, concluding that there was no objective evidence <br /> of actual bias. Id. at 874-76. He later voted, as part of the 3-2 <br /> majority, to reverse the jury verdict against the coal company. Id. <br /> 42 On appeal, the Court announced that a due process violation <br /> can arise, in lieu of concrete proof of actual bias, from the risk of <br /> actual bias. Id. at 884-85. Because of the extreme size, proximate <br /> timing, and apparent effect of Blankenship's contribution, the Court <br /> concluded that there was a serious risk that Justice Benjamin was <br /> biased in violation of the Due Process Clause. Id. at 885-87. To <br /> evaluate the risk of actual bias, the Court instructed us to consider <br /> objective factors such as the amount of the contribution, the <br /> temporal relationship between the contribution and the proceeding, <br /> 21 <br />