CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Several major companies, including Wal-Mart and Pepsi, are among the latest to tell the U.S. Supreme Court that West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin should not have helped to dismiss a multimillion-dollar verdict against Massey Energy.

"There is a need to signal businesses and the general public that judicial decisions cannot be bought and sold," the companies argued in a brief filed late Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The brief was filed by Wal-Mart Stores; PepsiCo; Lockheed Martin, a global security and airline company; Intel Corp., the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer; and the Committee for Economic Development, which describes itself as an "independent, nonpartisan organization of business and education leaders dedicated to policy research on the major economic and social issues of our time." A couple of other economic groups also participated in the brief.

They want the Supreme Court to send the case, brought against Massey by Harman Mining and its owner Hugh Caperton, back to the West Virginia Supreme Court for a new decision without any input from Benjamin.

Don Blankenship, Massey Energy's CEO, spent more than $3 million of his own money in a campaign to elect Benjamin over incumbent Justice Warren McGraw in 2004. At the time, Massey's appeal of a Boone County verdict, originally $50 million and now worth more than $82 million, was pending before the state Supreme Court.

After Benjamin was elected, the court twice issued 3-2 decisions overturning the Boone County verdict against Massey. Benjamin voted with the majority both times.

Harman and Caperton then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed in November to hear the appeal.

In their brief, the companies and economic groups argued that confidence in the judiciary - and its effect on business - is a central factor in the case.

"Confidence in the judiciary is of particular value to those engaged in commerce, who rely on evenhanded justice to make informed financial and investment decisions," the brief argues.

"There is a need to signal to businesses and the general public that judicial decisions cannot be bought and sold. Reversal of the judgment ... based on Justice Benjamin's failure to recuse himself would accomplish that."

The brief concludes: "Where outsized judicial contributions can be purchased, economic actors will lose confidence in the judicial system, markets will operate less efficiently and American enterprise will suffer accordingly."

CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Several major companies, including Wal-Mart and Pepsi, are among the latest to tell the U.S. Supreme Court that West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin should not have helped to dismiss a multimillion-dollar verdict against Massey Energy.

"There is a need to signal businesses and the general public that judicial decisions cannot be bought and sold," the companies argued in a brief filed late Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The brief was filed by Wal-Mart Stores; PepsiCo; Lockheed Martin, a global security and airline company; Intel Corp., the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer; and the Committee for Economic Development, which describes itself as an "independent, nonpartisan organization of business and education leaders dedicated to policy research on the major economic and social issues of our time." A couple of other economic groups also participated in the brief.

They want the Supreme Court to send the case, brought against Massey by Harman Mining and its owner Hugh Caperton, back to the West Virginia Supreme Court for a new decision without any input from Benjamin.

Don Blankenship, Massey Energy's CEO, spent more than $3 million of his own money in a campaign to elect Benjamin over incumbent Justice Warren McGraw in 2004. At the time, Massey's appeal of a Boone County verdict, originally $50 million and now worth more than $82 million, was pending before the state Supreme Court.

After Benjamin was elected, the court twice issued 3-2 decisions overturning the Boone County verdict against Massey. Benjamin voted with the majority both times.

Harman and Caperton then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed in November to hear the appeal.

In their brief, the companies and economic groups argued that confidence in the judiciary - and its effect on business - is a central factor in the case.

"Confidence in the judiciary is of particular value to those engaged in commerce, who rely on evenhanded justice to make informed financial and investment decisions," the brief argues.

"There is a need to signal to businesses and the general public that judicial decisions cannot be bought and sold. Reversal of the judgment ... based on Justice Benjamin's failure to recuse himself would accomplish that."

The brief concludes: "Where outsized judicial contributions can be purchased, economic actors will lose confidence in the judicial system, markets will operate less efficiently and American enterprise will suffer accordingly."

The American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, a national nonprofit association based in Rockville, Md., also filed an amicus or "friend of the court" brief on Monday.

"Bias or perceived bias influences not only the immediate case before the court but other cases and legal transactions that depend upon precedents created by appellate decisions," according to the group's brief.

The Supreme Court should act, AAAL argues, to counter "the public's loss of respect for and confidence in the legal system," especially in states that elect judges.

"The magnitude of Mr. Blankenship's contribution to Justice Benjamin's campaign is so great that it is easy to say it crossed the line of impropriety."

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School filed a third amicus brief, with two other groups, backing Caperton's appeal.

"The timing of the expenditures and the other facts of this case are so egregious ... that they offer the [Supreme] Court the ideal opportunity to reinforce one of the most fundamental rights in any system based on the rule of law: the right to a fair hearing before an impartial arbiter," the brief argues.

Four other briefs backing Caperton came from the American Bar Association; the Center for Political Accountability; the American Association for Justice; and 27 former state Supreme Court justices from 19 states, including former West Virginia Supreme Court justice Richard Neely.

Massey's brief in the case is due Jan. 28, and briefs supporting Massey are due Feb. 4.

Reach Paul J. Nyden

at pjny...@wvgazette.com

 or 304-348-5164.