A Double Standard of Federal Criminal Justice on Perjury Charges: Freedom for Chief Federal Judge Mark E. Fuller, Prosecution for LGBTQ Rights Attorney Carl S. Charles
- Donald V. Watkins
- Oct 15
- 4 min read
By: Donald V. Watkins
Copyrighted and Published on October 15, 2025
An Editorial Opinion
Carl S. Charles is a prominent and highly respected civil rights attorney in the Atlanta Southeastern Regional Office of Lambda Legal, a LGBTQ advocacy group. Charles enjoys a pristine reputation for ethics, professionalism, and competency as a litigator.
On August 19, 2025, Charles was charged in a one-count indictment with lying during a federal judicial panel's inquiry into whether he and his co-counsel engaged in "judge shopping" with respect to the filing of a lawsuit that challenged Alabama's ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth.
The one count indictment, which was obtained by federal prosecutors in Montgomery, Alabama, alleges that Charles made a false statement before a grand jury or court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The single perjury charge arises from the panel's question about whether Charles made a call to a federal judge's office in Montgomery before his legal team filed their lawsuit.
As I have written before, Carl Charles and his co-counsel were railroaded in a bogus “judge shopping” judicial inquiry proceeding that targeted them solely because they were representing LGBTQ clients in a state that has a long, ugly, and documented history of hostility toward attorneys who represented disfavored groups (e.g., Blacks, women, Muslims, Jews, LGBTQ Americans, etc.) and their clients.
The act of "judge shopping," itself, is widely practiced by federal prosecutors and corporate defense counsel as a matter of custom and without any judicial scrutiny or blowback. It is rarely done by lawyers representing plainiffs.
U.S. District Judge Liles Burke, who is based in Huntsville, Alabama, was tasked by the judicial panel with (a) running Carl Charles and his out-of-state co-counsel out of Alabama and (b) punishing Charles's in-state co-counsel. Liles is the judge who made the criminal referral of Charles to federal prosecutors. He is a Donald Trump-appointee.
Federal Prosecutors Protected Chief Federal Judge Mark E. Fuller, Who Made Multiple False Statements and Committed Serial Acts of Perjury
When “false statements” were made under oath by Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller (based in Montgomery, Alabama) about his serial wife-beating conduct (for which Fuller was arrested in Atlanta in 2014 and prosecuted in state court), federal prosecutors did absolutely nothing. Fuller's repeated, blatant, and intentional serial acts of perjury were apparently okay with these prosecutors because of his status as a judge.
On September 9, 2015, the Judicial Conference of the United States issued a Report to Congress that certified the following misconduct by Fuller:
“(a) Judge Fuller physically abused Kelli Fuller at least eight times, both before and after they married, which included and culminated in the assault that took place on August 9, 2014, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in downtown Atlanta, Georgia.
(b) Judge Fuller made repeated statements under oath before the Special Committee that he never, at any time, hit, kicked, or punched Kelli Fuller, which were false and material under 18 U.S.C. § 1621.
(c) Judge Fuller made false statements to the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit in late September 2010 in a way that caused a massive disruption in the District Court's operation and loss of public confidence in the Court as an instrument of justice. These false statements, in combination with the actions outlined in (a) and (b), contributed to the overall determination that Judge Fuller's conduct may constitute grounds for impeachment.
(d) The conduct described in (a)-(c) has individually and collectively brought disrepute to the federal Judiciary.”
The reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1621 is particularly damning. This is the general federal criminal statute for perjury. It covers the most wide-ranging and serious acts of perjury.
Again, even though the Judicial Conference in Washington certified that Judge Mark Fuller: (a) committed multiple acts of perjury, (b) gave repeated false statements to federal law enforcement officials during the course of an official investigation, and (c) obstructed the investigation, no federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., or in Atlanta, or in Montgomery, Alabama initiated criminal charges against Fuller.
Fuller v. Charles: Disparate Treatment and Selective Prosecution
The multitude of false statements in Mark Fuller’s judicial inquiry evidenced serial acts of perjury on multiple topics that caused "massive disruption" to the operation of the entire court system of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. In contrast, the alleged false statement in Charles’s case was limited to a single question about a single subject (i.e., a phone call to a judge's office).
Charles's answer to the question, whether truthful or not, did not "caused a massive disruption in the District Court's operation and loss of public confidence in the Court as an instrument of justice," nor did it "[bring] disrepute to the federal Judiciary.”
Yet, Carl Charles is the one who is being prosecuted by federal prosecutors in Montgomery for conduct that, if true, is far less egregious and damaging than Fuller’s. At most, Charles's conduct, if true, would only rise to the level of a state Bar association complaint and a federal court reprimand.
There is no rational basis for federal prosecutors "forgiving" Judge Mark Fuller for his devastating serial acts of perjury, while prosecuting Carl Charles to the maximum extent of the law. The only explanation for this "in-your-face" disparate treatment and selective prosecution is this truism: There is an open, ugly, and entrenched judicial bias against out-of-state lawyers who represent LGBTQ clients in Alabama's federal court system (when viewed as a whole).
The disparate treatment in Carl Charles's case is one more reason why the public's respect for the federal criminal justice system in America today is in the toilet. Judge Liles's referral of Charles for criminal prosecution, standing alone, "brought disrepute to the federal Judiciary.”
Lamda Legal stands by Carl Charles, as it should. https://lambdalegal.org/newsroom/us_20250909_statement-in-support-of-counsel-carl-charles/
Have you noticed the deafening silence of the Alabama and America Bar Associations on this form of judicial tyranny against lawyers who represent LGBTQ Americans? I have.
Federal judges in Alabama have a long, ugly, pervasive, and well-documented history of engaging in vicious acts of judicial tyranny against in-state and out-of-state attorneys for disfavored civil rights groups/litigants.
Carl Charles and other attorneys for LGBTQ clients in Alabama are being harassed and railroaded in the same way COINTELPRO-era participating federal judges in the state abused and railroaded civil rights lawyers for the state's black citizens in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.
Historically, the primary disfavored groups in Alabama have been blacks, women, and LGBTQ citizens. Since 1819, the constitutional and civil rights of these groups have been suppressed in Alabama from the "cradle to the grave."
In recent years, the segment of the LGBTQ community that…
I'm rating this post lower than your others because I think Carl Charles's cause is misguided. There is zero evidence of benefit from "gender-affirming care," especially for adolescents given "puberty blockers," as virtually all European countries have decided. On the contrary this kind of treatment has the potential for causing lifelong damage not just to the bones (osteoporosis), but likely to sexual function and possibly to fertility.