State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman will remain on a criminal case despite accusations of bias, as the six other justices could not agree whether they have the authority to remove him in a tied decision Thursday.

The case in question centers around Milwaukee man Aaron Antonio Allen, who was sentenced to 37 years in prison in 1999 after being convicted of armed robbery and possessing a firearm as a felon.

Allen appealed to the Supreme Court because he felt he had ineffective counsel in this initial case.

Allen then asked Gableman to step down from residing over this appeal because he felt Gableman was biased against defendants.

During the 2008 Supreme Court Justice race between Gableman and former defense attorney Louis Butler, Gableman was accused of lying in several of his campaign ads regarding Butler’s role in defending a sex offender.

Because of these ads, some have felt Gableman is biased against criminal defendants and defense lawyers.

Currently, justices are encouraged to step down from cases where they may have a conflict of interest.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, along with Justices Ann Walsh and Patrick Crooks argued in the decision they have the right to remove Gableman from the case due to the accusations against him.

Justices David Prosser, Annette Ziegler and Patience Roggensack argued they do not have the authority to remove him. Gableman did not vote on the issue.

“Without briefs, Justices Prosser, Roggensack and Ziegler have reached the extraordinary conclusion that this court never has power to guarantee that all members are impartial,” Abrahamson, Walsh and Crooks wrote in the decision.

Abrahamson and the other two justices contended that Prosser, Ziegler and Roggensack only wanted the case dismissed because it may damage the reputation of the court.

“Do Justices Prosser, Roggensack and Ziegler truly believe that any public perception of this court will be improved if this court places any challenged justice’s individual decision of impartiality beyond any form of meaningful review?” they wrote.

Roggensack said she decided against taking Gableman off the case because she felt Allen and his lawyer were over-reaching in their accusations against Gableman.

“Allen was trying to do judge shopping. He was trying to create a panel of this court that he thought might be one that he would prefer,” Roggensack said.

Roggensack added it would have been a different case if Gableman had directly tried Allen before, but she said Gableman had never been professionally involved with Allen, and the accusations came solely from past campaign ads.

University of Wisconsin Law professor David Schultz said cases like this have been becoming more prominent recently, as the court may be becoming more politicized.