Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Law
Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall—Biased Impartiality, Appearances, And The Need For Recusal Reform, Zygmont A. Pines
Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall—Biased Impartiality, Appearances, And The Need For Recusal Reform, Zygmont A. Pines
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The article focuses on a troubling aspect of contemporary judicial morality.
Impartiality—and the appearance of impartiality—are the foundation of judicial decision-making, judicial morality, and the public’s trust in the rule of law. Recusal, in which a jurist voluntarily removes himself or herself from participating in a case, is a process that attempts to preserve and promote the substance and the appearance of judicial impartiality. Nevertheless, the traditional common law recusal process, prevalent in many of our state court systems, manifestly subverts basic legal and ethical norms.
Today’s recusal practice—whether rooted in unintentional hypocrisy, wishful thinking, or a pathological cognitive dissonance— …
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis Of Federal Law, Third Edition, Charles G. Geyh
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis Of Federal Law, Third Edition, Charles G. Geyh
Books & Book Chapters by Maurer Faculty
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law outlines the statutory framework of federal judicial disqualification law under statutes 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 144, 47, and 2106. The monograph revises and expands on the previous editions, and analyzes the case law, with a focus both on substantive disqualification standards and procedural requirements.
Reforming Recusal Rules: Reassessing The Presumption Of Judicial Impartiality In Light Of The Realities Of Judging And Changing The Substance Of Disqualification Standards To Eliminate Cognitive Errors, Melinda A. Marbes
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
In recent years, high profile disqualification disputes have caught the attention of the public. In each instance there has been an outcry when a presiding jurist was asked to recuse but declined. Unfortunately, even if the jurist explains his refusal to recuse, the reasons given often are unsatisfying and do little to quell suspicions of bias. Instead, litigants, the press, and the public question whether the jurist actually is unbiased and doubt the impartiality of the judiciary as a whole. This negative reaction to refusals to recuse is caused, at least in part, by politically charged circumstances that cause further …
Partisan Judicial Speech And Recusal Procedure, Dmitry Bam
Partisan Judicial Speech And Recusal Procedure, Dmitry Bam
Faculty Publications
This article discusses Associate Professor Appleby’s thoughtful comment criticizing the Supreme Court’s self-recusal procedure in light of Justice Ginsberg’s critical remarks about then-Presidential Candidate Trump.
Rethinking Prosecutors' Conflicts Of Interest, Bruce Green, Rebecca Roiphe
Rethinking Prosecutors' Conflicts Of Interest, Bruce Green, Rebecca Roiphe
Articles & Chapters
Conflicts of interest are endemic to almost all prosecutors’ discretionary decisions, and are the source of many instances of misconduct and abuse. Prosecutors’ decisions are riddled with complex motivations, beliefs, and interests that potentially divert them from their duty to do justice. Understood as any personal belief or interest that could interfere with the prosecutors’ ability to serve the public interest, conflicts of interest threaten to undermine the efficacy and legitimacy of the criminal justice system. The traditional regulatory system barely addresses the problem and could never effectively do so. Drawing on experimentalism, which mandates that local actors design and …
Judicial Disqualification And Recusal In Criminal Cases, Edward L. Wilkinson
Judicial Disqualification And Recusal In Criminal Cases, Edward L. Wilkinson
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
The United States Supreme Court has recognized circumstances in which the probability of judicial bias requiring disqualification or recusal is “too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” At the same time, the Texas Constitution contains a number of provisions barring a judge from presiding over a case under specific circumstances, while statutes and procedural rules either disqualify a judge or require him or her to be recused. Thus, whether a particular judge may preside over a given criminal case may be questioned under the Due Process Clause, the Texas Constitution, statue, or the rules of procedure. This Article will examine the …
The State Of Recusal Reform, Charles G. Geyh, Myles Lynk, Robert S. Peck, Toni Clarke
The State Of Recusal Reform, Charles G. Geyh, Myles Lynk, Robert S. Peck, Toni Clarke
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Judicial Ethics And Supreme Court Exceptionalism, Amanda Frost
Judicial Ethics And Supreme Court Exceptionalism, Amanda Frost
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
In his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts cast doubt on Congress’s authority to regulate the Justices’ ethical conduct, declaring that the constitutionality of such legislation has “never been tested.” Roberts’ comments not only raise important questions about the relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court, they also call into question the constitutionality of a number of existing and proposed ethics statutes. Thus, the topic deserves close attention.
This Essay contends that Congress has broad constitutional authority to regulate the Justices’ ethical conduct, just as it has exercised control over other vital aspects of the …
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis Of Federal Law, Second Edition, Charles G. Geyh
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis Of Federal Law, Second Edition, Charles G. Geyh
Books & Book Chapters by Maurer Faculty
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law (second edition) outlines the statutory framework of federal judicial disqualification law under the statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 144, 47, and 2106. The monograph substantially revises and expands on the first edition, and analyzes the case law, with a focus both on substantive disqualification standards and procedural requirements. It features a revised organizational structure and includes new material, as well as updated cases.
Impartiality: Balancing Personal And Professional Integrity In Judicial Decisionmaking, Sarah M. R. Cravens
Impartiality: Balancing Personal And Professional Integrity In Judicial Decisionmaking, Sarah M. R. Cravens
Akron Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
In Defense Of Appearances: What Caperton V. Massey Should Have Said, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
In Defense Of Appearances: What Caperton V. Massey Should Have Said, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
In June of 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that an elected judge must recuse himself from a case that involves a major campaign contributor. In Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., a coal company had been hit with a $50 million jury verdict. While appealing this verdict, the company's CEO, Don Blankenship, spent $3 million to help a challenger, Brent Benjamin, who had no judicial experience, defeat the incumbent, West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw. Blankenship funded political attack ads by a political organization (And for the Sake of the Kids) that …
Understanding Caperton: Judicial Disqualification Under The Due Process Clause, Dmitry Bam
Understanding Caperton: Judicial Disqualification Under The Due Process Clause, Dmitry Bam
Faculty Publications
It is virtually impossible to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. without hearing some variant of the following response: “I can’t believe it was as close as it was.” And it does not matter whether you are chatting with your next-door neighbor who had never thought about judicial ethics in his life or discussing the case with a judicial-recusal expert. Nearly everyone seems to agree: Caperton was an “easy” case and that four justices dissented is an indication that there is something terribly wrong. Not only has Caperton elevated the issue of judicial impartiality …
Conflict Of Interest And Disqualification In The Federal Courts: Suggestions For Reform, Arthur D. Hellman
Conflict Of Interest And Disqualification In The Federal Courts: Suggestions For Reform, Arthur D. Hellman
Testimony
Although federal judges do not run for election, over the last three decades the process of nomination and confirmation has become politicized to a disturbing degree. There is a real danger that the judges will come to be perceived not as dispassionate servants of the law but as political actors who pursue political or ideological agendas. One consequence of these developments is likely to be increased scrutiny of judges’ responses to motions to recuse. Here as in other aspects of the operations of the judiciary, “just trust us” is no longer sufficient.
Two provisions of Title 28 of the United …
Preface, Ray Thornton
Preface, Ray Thornton
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
Don't Shoot The Canons: Maintaining The Appearance Of Propriety Standard, M. Margaret Mckeown
Don't Shoot The Canons: Maintaining The Appearance Of Propriety Standard, M. Margaret Mckeown
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
Recusals And The "Problem" Of An Equally Divided Supreme Court, Ryan Black, Lee Epstein
Recusals And The "Problem" Of An Equally Divided Supreme Court, Ryan Black, Lee Epstein
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
Keeping Up Appearances: A Process-Oriented Approach To Judicial Recusal, Amanda Frost
Keeping Up Appearances: A Process-Oriented Approach To Judicial Recusal, Amanda Frost
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
No abstract provided.
Revisiting Standards Of Review In Civil Appeals., W. Wendell Hall
Revisiting Standards Of Review In Civil Appeals., W. Wendell Hall
St. Mary's Law Journal
Applying and defining the accurate standard of review determines how likely an appeal will be successful. While the proper standard of review may be easy to identify, applying the standard of review to a case is often problematic. The standards define the interactions between trial and appellate courts by distributing the power of review throughout the judicial branch. The standards of review also limit a court’s authority to determine an error by a trial court, and whether the error warrants reversal. The standard sets the requirements of substantive law and provides a means for appellate judges to weigh arguments. This …