Difference between revisions of "Right to Impartial Judge"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 4: Line 4:
 
==United States==
 
==United States==
  
In Tumey v. Ohio, the Supreme Court described the reasons why it is important for judges to be impartial:
+
In Tumey v. Ohio, the Supreme Court explained why it is important for judges to be impartial:
  
 
<blockquote>"[I]t certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment and deprives a defendant in a criminal case of due process of law to subject his liberty or property to the judgment of a court, the judge of which has a direct personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case"<Ref> Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)</ref></blockquote>
 
<blockquote>"[I]t certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment and deprives a defendant in a criminal case of due process of law to subject his liberty or property to the judgment of a court, the judge of which has a direct personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case"<Ref> Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)</ref></blockquote>
  
A defendant may challenge a judge for cause for bias. Each state will generally promulgate rules laying out the exact grounds for when a defendant can challenge a judge for cause. If the matter requires a hearing, the hearing should be conducted by a second judge who has no interest in the outcome of the recusal.
+
A defendant may challenge a biased judge for cause. Generally, each state will promulgate rules laying out the exact grounds for a defendant's challenge of a judge for cause. If the matter requires a hearing, the hearing should be conducted by a second judge who has no interest in the outcome of the potential recusal.
  
A judge also has the responsibility to take affirmative action to remove the appearance of improporiety or bias. The judge should not rely on the defendant to raise the issue of impartiality.
+
A judge also has the responsibility to take affirmative action to remove the appearance of impropriety or bias. The judge should not rely on the defendant to raise the issue of impartiality.
  
 
Several states also permit a "peremptory challenge" without a showing of bias.
 
Several states also permit a "peremptory challenge" without a showing of bias.

Revision as of 15:09, 13 August 2010

Background

The judge holds enormous power in both civil law and common law criminal justice systems. Because this power is disproportionately large compared to both the criminal defense lawyer and the prosecutor, a defendant has the right to trial by an impartial and unbiased judge.

United States

In Tumey v. Ohio, the Supreme Court explained why it is important for judges to be impartial:

"[I]t certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment and deprives a defendant in a criminal case of due process of law to subject his liberty or property to the judgment of a court, the judge of which has a direct personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case"[1]

A defendant may challenge a biased judge for cause. Generally, each state will promulgate rules laying out the exact grounds for a defendant's challenge of a judge for cause. If the matter requires a hearing, the hearing should be conducted by a second judge who has no interest in the outcome of the potential recusal.

A judge also has the responsibility to take affirmative action to remove the appearance of impropriety or bias. The judge should not rely on the defendant to raise the issue of impartiality.

Several states also permit a "peremptory challenge" without a showing of bias.


See Rights of the Accused

Notes

  1. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)