In a recent decision by the Alabama criminal appeals court, an immunity hearing for an ex-police officer facing murder charges will proceed in March. The court found no valid evidence to support claims that the judge involved had improperly revealed his decision-making intentions in the case.
All five judges agreed that the defense for former Decatur police officer Mac Marquette failed to produce any sworn statements or factual proof indicating that Judge Charles Elliot had compromised his judicial ethics. Marquette’s legal team had previously sought an appeal for Elliot to recuse himself, which was subsequently denied.
Marquette is accused of murder following the fatal shooting of Steve Perkins in 2023. The incident occurred while Marquette was aiding a tow-truck driver assigned to repossess Perkins’ vehicle. The defense argues that Perkins aimed a firearm at the driver, asserting that Marquette should qualify for immunity under “stand your ground” laws, which absolve individuals from the obligation to retreat before using lethal force if threatened.
Surveillance footage from a nearby residence, aired by WAFF, seemingly captures Marquette discharging his weapon nearly 20 times. The incident provoked widespread public demonstrations and outcry in Decatur, a northern Alabama city with roughly 60,000 residents. Protesters and civil rights advocates argue that Marquette failed to allow Perkins adequate time to comply with any orders.
In their petition to the criminal appeals court, Marquette’s attorneys claimed Elliot engaged in inappropriate communications beyond formal court settings, urging for a hearing to present evidence regarding these allegations. They specifically accused Elliot of discussing the denial of Marquette’s immunity with Decatur Police Department Lt. Mike Burleson due to the case’s high profile, fearing for his family’s safety and his own political future in the 2026 elections. These claims reportedly stem from an anonymous individual who allegedly overheard the conversation.
Judge Elliot responded via a written affidavit, dismissing the recusal motion as reckless and untruthful. He acknowledged a friendship with Burleson but firmly denied any such discussion occurred. Additionally, the defense accused Elliot of using intimidation tactics against one of their attorneys via a call made during a holiday, which the appeals court deemed procedural and not improper.
The defense for Marquette did not offer comments when contacted, and attempts to reach Judge Elliot’s office yielded no response. The immunity hearing is scheduled to commence on March 25.