## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 3946 A NDR EW S UH, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. G UY P I ER CE , W ar den, R es pond ent -App el lant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:03- cv-07014

—Rebec ca R. Pal lmey er, Judge
.
A RGUED O CT OB ER 20, 2010

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 18, 2011

Befo re F LA UM, R IPPLE, an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . F i ftee n yea rs ag o, a fte r a be nch tr i alin t h e C i rcui t Cour t o fCookCounty pr esi ded o ver by J ud ge J ohn M or ri sse y, A nd re w S u h was convi cted o f fi rs t- degre e m urder and arm ed robber y a nd se ntenced to con secu tiv e te rm s of 80 an d 20 years. I n a sta te cou rt p et itio n for p os tc on vic tio n r elie f, Su h arg u ed th at h is convi cti ons and sentence s were tainted, i n vi ola tio n of the due pro cess cl ause , because J ud ge M or ri sse y had an und i scl ose d rel ati onshi p w i th the f am i l y ofthe m urder vi cti m . The sta te cour ts denie d S uh’s peti ti on. H e t hen2 N o. 09

- 3946

so ug hta wri t o fhabe as c o r pus i n fede r alcou rt, pur su an t to 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 , b u t t h at p et itio n w as als o d en ied

. See Suh v. M ote, 20 09 W L 3 68 16 45 ( N
. D. I l l

. Nov
. 3 , 2 00 9)

. S uh now appeal s. N ot ab ly, h ow ev er , Su h n ow m ain ta in s t h a t h e is en ti tl ed to r el i efs i m pl y b ec au se the s i tu at i o n mi g ht have l oo ked i m proper t o an outs i de obs er ver, despi te the f act that J ud ge M or ri ssey was actual l y unaware of th e r el at i o ns hi p b etwee n h i s ac qua i nt an ce s an d the m ur d e r v i c t i m wh e n th e c a s e we n tt o t r i a l

. T h e g o v e r nm en t, o n the o th er h an d, c o nt en ds th atthi s ar g um en t w as n otp re se n te d p r e v i ou sly an d th at, in an y e ve n t, it l ac k s m er i t. W e b egin wi ththe f ac ts a s f o und b y the st at e c ou rt s. See 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254(e)(1)

. I n l ate S eptem ber19 93, Robe rtO’Dub ai ne was shot t wi c e a n d k i l l e d a s h e e n t e r e d th e g a r a g e o fh i s h o me i n C hi cago ’ s Buckto w n nei ghborhood. O’Dubai ne l i ved in t h e h om e w ith h is gir lfrien d , C at h er in e Su h, w h o is A nd re w S uh’s oldersi ste r. Duri ng a subsequent pol i ce i nter vi ew , Cather i ne adm i tte d to l uri ng O’ Du b aine into the g ar age f ora w aiting gunm an. Cather i ne was ar re ste d but fl ed afte r be i ng r el ea se d o n bo nd. A j ur y l at er convicte d her i n a b s e nt i a offi rs t- degre e m urder and arm ed r o bb ery . S he was s en te nc ed to l i fe i n pr i so n. S h o r tly aft er C at h er in e’s arr es t, Su h, a 19 -ye ar -old col l ege stud ent a t the ti m e, was i nter vi ew ed by Ch i cago pol i ce. H e e ventual l y confess ed to m urdering O’ Du bai ne, ex p lain in g t h at h is s ist er h ad rep ea t e d l y s ou gh t h is h elp ina p lan to kill O ’D u b ain e b e c a u s e h e w as p h ys ica lly ab us i nghe r a nd s pen di nghe r mone y . W he n Ca th er i ne l ured O’Dubai ne i nto the g ar age , S uh, w ho had bee nN o. 09

- 3946 3

A ccording t o the private i nvesti gator, O ’ D ub aine w as 1 b or n “ R ob e rt K or on ” an d cha ng ed his last na m e to a G aelic der i vat i ve of“Di vane ” s eve ra l ye ar s be f or e hi s dea th. hi di ngthe r e f o r s o m e ti m e, sho t O’ Duba i ne t wi ce i n the he ad. S uh the n t o o kO’ Duba i ne ’ s wal l eta nd c ar, a nd drove away. S uh a ppea l ed hi s co nv i ct i o ns a nd s enten ces , a dva nc i ng ar gu m ents that ar e no t a t i ssue here

. The st ate app ell at e co ur t affi r m ed th e co nv i ct i o ns b utmo di fi ed th e sen ten ces to ru n con cu rrently. T he stat e s up rem e cou rt d en ied lea ve to ap p ea l. Peop l ev. Su h , 729 N .E .2d 50 3 (Ill. 20 00 ). Su h th en filed tw o p os tc on vic tio n p et iti on s in sta te cou rt, ag ai n m aking ar gum ents that ar e no t r el ev an t he r e. The s ta te a ppel l at e co ur t affi r m ed th e d ism issals ofboth pet iti ons , an d the sta te su p rem e cou rt d en ied lea ve to ap p ea l. Peop l ev. Su h , 78 6 N

. E.2 d 197 (I ll

. 2002). I n the mean ti m e, Pa tr i ckLa ve r y, a pl ay wri g htr es ea r ch

ing Suh ’s story, in t e rview ed a nu n, Si ster B arbara M cCarr y, w ho had bee n the pri nci pal o fS uh’s gr am m ar schoo land w as knowle dgeabl e about th e c ase . A ccor di ng t o La v e r y, S i s t e r M c Ca r r y s a i d tha t the j ud g e a t Su h’ s t r i a l( M o r r i s s e y ) , wa s c l o s e t o the v i c t i m’ s f a mi l y. A pri vate i nv es tiga ti on s ubsequentl y r eve al ed that J ud ge M or ri sse y: ( 1) se rv ed on the CookCounty F i rs t M unici pal Dis tr i ct Cour t fro m 19 83 to 1988 with O’Dubaine ’ s uncl e, Jud ge J ohn Div ane; and ( 2) at tended hi gh sc hoolwith W i l l i am ( Bil l ) Div ane, the cousin of O ’Du baine ’s m oth er. 14 N o. 09

- 3946 Su h th en filed a th ird p os tc on vic ti on p et itio n in st at e co ur t, a r g ui ngtha t J udg e M o r r i ss ey ’ s ti es t o the fam il y of th e v ictim created a cons titution all y i m p erm issible pote nt ialf or j ud ici al bi as. Th e state trial cou rt den i ed S uh’ s r eque stt o us e di sc o ve r y t o i nv es tig at e th e al l ega ti ons, so hi s l aw yer s r el i ed on e vi dence ga ther ed thro ugh voluntaryte l ephone i nter vi ew s with J ud ge M or ri sse y a nd o ther s. I n hi s inter vie w , Judge M or ri sse y s tat ed that he was una war e o fa ny r el at ionshi p b etwee n O’ Duba i ne a nd the Di vane fa m i l y. H e s ai d that W i l l i am Div ane was a casualfri end, b u t he di d not know thatW i l l i am was re l ate d to O’Dubaine

. A ccor ding to Suh’ s l aw yer s, W al ter M o r r i ss ey( who, de spi te hi s na m e, i s no t r el at ed to the j udg e) , a hi g h s ch o o lc las smat e o fW i l l i am Di va ne a nd J ud ge M or ri sse y, i ni ti al l y s tat ed t h at thos e tw o m en saw e ach o therr egul ar l y a nd were l ong- ti m e fri ends. The day afterthe i nter vie w , how eve r, W al tercal l ed Suh’ s l aw ye rs backand sai d that W i l l i am actual l y had no r el ati onshi p w i th J ud ge M or ri sse y. J ud ge M or ri sse y a l so tol d the l aw yers that J ud ge Diva ne neve r conta cted hi m abo ut S uh’s c ase . J ud ge Diva ne was i nter vi ew ed and agr eed thathe ne ver spoke to J udg e M o r r i ss eyaboutthe c as e. In f ac t, J udg e Di va ne sa i d that he di d no t ev enkno w J udg e M o r r i ss ey . And d u ring her interview , Si ster M cC arry said th at, contrary to La ve r y ’ s a sse r ti o ns , s he ha d no kno wl edg e o fa ny co nne ct i o n be twe en J udg e M o r r i ss ey an d the Di va ne f am i l y. The s ta te t r i alc o ur t den i ed S uh’ s pet i ti o n, a nd he appe al ed. Al th o ug h the di sc o ve ry r ul i ngwas theN o. 09

- 3946 5

S u h ac t u a l l y fi l e d h i s fe d e r a l h a b e a s p e t i t i o n a tth e s a me 2 ti m e as h is thir d p ost convict ion peti ti on in s tat e c ourt i n order t o c om pl y with the appl i c abl e one- y ear s t atut e ofl i m i t at i on. S ee 28 U. S. C . § 22 44 ( d)

. The di s t ri c tj udge the n s t aye d the fede ra l pe t i t i on pen di ng the r es ol ut i on ofthe s t at e pet i t i on. m ai n f ocus ofhi s a pp el l ate br ief, S uh al so ar gued that h i s p e t i t i o n s h o u l d h a v e b e e n g r a n t e d b e c a u s e “ [ t] he onl y r eas onable infer ence fro m J ud ge M or ri sse y’ s cl ose f r i e nd s hi p wi th Bi l l Di v a ne i s tha t Bi l l Di v a ne m ust ha ve to l d J udg e M o r r i ss eyo fthe murde r o fhi s co us i n, and Judge M or ri sse y c ou ld nothave f ai l ed to r eco gni ze tha th e wa s t r y i ngtha tcas e

— A nd re w S uh’s case

— in hi s co ur tr o o m . ” I n a ffi r m i ngthe de ni alo fS uh’ s pet i ti o n, the state appell ate co urt ci ted bo th I l l i noi s a nd U ni ted St ate s S up re m e Cour t ca se l aw o n j u d icia lbi as but r easone d that, bec ause J ud ge M or ri sse y “ w as u n aw ar e o f an y r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t we e n th e v i c t i m a n d th e D i v an e f ami l y, ” fur th erdi sc o ve r y woul d ha ve b ee n fut i l e, a nd “u n fair n es s w as n otp ro b ab le d u rin g [Su h ’s] t ria l.” I n h i s p e t i t i o n f o r l e a v e t o a p p e a l t o th e s t a t e s u p r e me cour t, S uh repea ted th e ar gu m ents m ade to the sta te appe l l at e co ur t. The su pr eme co ur t den i ed S uh’ s pet i ti o n. Peop l ev. Su h , 875 N
. E.2 d 1122 ( I l l . 2 00 7). Suh then fi l ed a fed er al ha b ea s p et itio n in th e d ist ric t cou rta n d ag ain 2 r eque st ed per m i ss i o n t o t ak e se ve r al de po si ti o ns . The dist ri ct j ud ge subsequentl y g ra nted the re quest with re sp ect to J ud ge M or ri sse y, J ud ge Diva ne, W i l l i am Diva ne, and Si ste r M cCarr y. The deposi ti ons w er e l argel y c onsi ste nt with the e ar l i er i nter vi ew s. Si ste r M cCarr y a dm i tte d to m eet i ng with6 N o. 09

- 3946 Laveryand dis cussi ng Su h ’s case but she sa i d she had no r eco l l ecti on o fev erm enti oni ng a connect i on be tw een J ud ge M or ri ss ey and the vi cti m ’ s f am i l y. Rather, S i ste r M c C ar ry be liev ed th at L av er y w as try in g t o d is c re d it J ud ges M or ri sse y a nd Div ane. J ud ge M or ri sse y t est i fi ed to being ac quaint ed w i th Ju d ge D iva n e, alt h ou gh th eir co u r t r oo m s w er e in se par at e bui l di ng s. J ud g e M o r r i ss eye st i m at ed th athe spoke t o J ud g e Di v a ne s o me fi v e o r t e n t i mes a tj ud i ci al conferen ces between 19 83 and 1988 and m aybe ata dinnerf orj ud ges . J ud ge Diva ne , however, te sti fi ed that he co uld n ot r ecallev erm eet i ng o r speaking to J ud ge M or ri sse y a nd thathe woul d not re c ogniz e hi m i fthey did m eet
. J udg e M o r r i ss eya l so t es ti fi ed to be i ng a ca su ala cqua i ntan ce of W il li am Divan e. B oth m en said th at t h ey w ere hi gh sc hoolcla ssm ate s but not cl ose fri ends and that th e y h a v e me t o c c a s i o n a l l y a t h i g h s c h o o l r e u n i o n s an d chari ty functions. J ud ge M or ri sse y t est i fi ed that he m ost recen tly spoke to W il li am at a gol f even t in 2007, w he re they bri efl y di scusse d the invest i gat i on r el ating to Suh’ s 1 995 tr i al

. W i l l i am Div ane, however, te sti fi ed that he co uld notr ecal lwh etherhe ha d seen J ud ge M or ri ssey after20 02 and that they ne verhad a c onver sat i on ab o utS uh. J u d g e Mo r r i s s e y l a s t l y t e s t i fi e d th a t, a tth e t i me o ft he tr i al, he di d no t k no w tha t ei th erW i l l i am o r J udg e Di va ne w as re l ate d to O’Dubaine

. H e a l so sai d t h at h e di d not com m unica te w i th any one fro m the Diva ne fam ily, o r anyo ne act i ng o n t h e fa m i l y’ s be hal f, abo ut the case b efo re or d u rin g t h e t ria l.N o. 09

- 3946 7 A fterthe deposi ti ons, S uh fi l ed an am ended p eti ti on w i th the di s t r i c tc o ur t
. T he r e , h e a r g ue d tha tJ ud ge M or ri sse y’ s co nnecti on s to the f am i l y o fthe vi cti m es tabl i shed an i m perm i ssibl e “ appearance o fbi as” i n vi ol at i o n of th e d u e p ro c es s c lau se . Sp ec ifica lly, h e c h all enged the r eas onabl en es s ofthe sta te cour t’ s f actual fi nd i ngs o n the exi ste nce o fa re lat ionship betw een J ud ge M or ri sse y and the Diva nes. H e al so ar gu ed that th e st at e co ur t unr ea so nabl y a ppl i ed the law t o the fac ts , sp ec u lat in g t h at th e d isc re p an c ies am on g t h e t e st imon y o fJ ud g e Mo r r i s s e y a nd the Di v a ne s indi c a t e d a c o v e r - up : A nd the onlyr ea so n fo r s uchc onfl i ct i ngt es ti m o ny m u stbe so m e a tt em p t t o d o w n p lay , or es c ap e a ll t o g e the r, the r e a ln a t ur e o r e xt e nto fthe r e l a t i o ns hi p. Thi s, o fc o ur se , l ea ds to the c o nc l us i on tha t
. . . the relationsh ip m us t be one thatri ses to th e level w he re the t e mpt a t i o n t o b e b i as [ si c ] eith er co u ld

— or d id

— affec t J udg e M orr i ss ey ’ s ab i l i tyt o b e f ai r a nd im p ar tia l. A fter su m m arizi ng th e evid en ce, th e d istri ct j ud g e de term i ne d tha t: ( 1) the r el at i ons hi ps wer e ta ng en ti ala nd th er efo r e woul d no t r equi r e r ec us alun d er the due proce ss cl ause; and, m or eov er, ( 2) no evi dence sugg es te d tha t J udg e M o r r i ss eye ve n kne w th at his ac qua i nta n c es w er e r e l a t e d t o th e v ict im , so th e c ou rtw ou ld not presum e a n unreas onabl y hi gh te m ptati on f orbi as. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ngs of fa c t fo r c lear e rr orand i ts l ega lco ncl usi ons, as wellas m i xed q u es tio n s o fla w an d fac t, deno vo . Harding v. Walls , 30 08 N o. 09

- 3946 F. 3d 824, 82 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02 ). U nd erthe A nti ter ro ri sm an d E ffe c t i v e D ea th P en alt y A c t o f 19 96 (A E D P A ), a fed er al c ou rtm ay iss u e a w ritof h ab ea s c or p u s o n ly if the deci si on o fthe l astst ate co u rt t o exam i ne the m er i ts ofthe peti ti oner ’ s cl ai m : ( 1) “was co ntra ryto , o r i nvol ved an un re aso nabl e a pp l i cati on o f, cl ear l y e stabli sh ed Fed eral l aw , as de term ined by the Su p rem e C ou rt ofthe U ni ted S tat es, ” o r ( 2) “was bas ed on a n unreaso n ab le d et er m in a t i o n of th e fa c ts in ligh t o f th e e vide nc e pre sent e d in the S t a t e c o ur tp r o c e e di ng . ” 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2254 (d). Befo re we turn t o the m er i ts, however , t h er e i s a pre l i m i na r y iss ue o fpr o ce dur alde f au l t. The g o ve r nm en t co nt end s tha t th e ar g um en t S uh i s no w m ak i ng

— na m ely, that du e proc ess req uired J ud ge M orris sey’s re cusalev en tho ugh he was unaw ar e o fthe connect i on be twe enthe Di va ne s an d O’ Duba i ne

— w as neve r prese nted to the sta te cour ts. “Ad equa te p resenta ti on o f a cl a i m r e qu i r e s a p e t i t i o ne r t o p r e s e ntb o th the o pe r ativ e fa c ts an d th e le ga l p rin c ip les th at co n tr ol ea c h cla im to the s tat e j ud iciary. ” St e ve ns v. M cBr i de, 48 9 F

. 3d 883, 894 (7th Cir. 2007). As we pr ev i o us l y no te d, S uh’ s ar g um en t to daydi ffer s fro m the one he m ad e i n the sta te cour ts. In hi s s tat e cour t a pp el l ate br i ef, S uh argued that hi s pos tco nvi cti on p et itio n sh o u ld h av e b ee n gra n te d be c au se “[t ]h e o n ly r e a s o nab l e i nfe r e nc e f r o m J ud g e Mo r r i s s e y ’ s c l o s e fr i e nd

shi p w i th Bi l lDiv ane i s that Bi l lDiv an e m u st have to ld Ju d ge M or ris se y of t h e m u rd er of h is c ou sin .” In othe r w or ds, S uh m ai nt ain ed that ther e was actual bi as,N o. 09

- 3946 9

Suh argu es thatth e g overnm ent w aived it s procedu ral 3 def aul tar gum en tby notm en t i oni ng i tin the d i s t ri c tc our t
. But (co n tin u ed ...) oratl eas t the pot e nt i al f oractualbi as, bec ause J ud ge M or risseyknew that O’Dubaine was re l ate d to Bil lDiv ane a s wel las se ver alo therpeopl e he knew rather w el l

. The appel l ate co urt acco rdi ngl y dete rm i ned that unfa irness was i m probabl e ba sed, i n part, o n a f actual fi nd i ng tha t J ud ge M or risse y “w as unaw ar e o fany re l ationsh ip betw een the victim and the D ivane f am il y.” Suh ’s p etit i o n fo r l ea ve t o a ppea lt o the s ta te s upr eme c o urt re peated thi s a rgum ent. I nde ed, S uh pe r si st ed in thi s po si ti o n b efo r e th e d istri ct cou rt. Th ere, he argue d that J ud ge M orri ssey’s connect i ons to the f am i l y o fthe vi ctim e st abli shed an i m per m is sibl e “a ppea r an ce o fb i as ” i n v i o l at i o n o fthe due pr o ce ss c l au se . Butb y “ appe ar an ce o fb i as , ” S uh w as sti l l r efer ring to the potenti alf oractual bi as b a s e d o n f a c ts kno wn t o th e j u d g e a tth e t i me . He as se r te d tha t th e co nfl i ct i ngde po siti o n t es ti m o ny i ndica ted a cove r- up , and ther ef or e “ the rela ti onshi p m ust be o ne thatr i ses to the lev el w here the te m ptation t o be bia s [ si c ] eith er co u ld

— or d id

— affect Jud ge M orri ssey’s ab i l i t y t o b e f a i r a n d i m par t i a l

. ” ( E mph a s i s a d d e d

. ) As a r esul t, i n rej ec tin g S uh’s peti ti on, the dist ri ct j ud ge f ou nd tha t th e ev i den ce was i ns uffi ci en t to r eb utthe sta te cour t’ s f actualfin ding that J ud ge M or ri sse y was unaw ar e o fthe pu rpor ted r el atio nshi p. U nd erthes e ci rcum sta nces, an unre aso nabl y hi gh te m ptati on f or b i a s c o ul d n o tb e p r e s ume d. 310 N o. 09

- 3946

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 bec aus e Suhfi rs tadva nc ed h i s m odi fi ed “ appe ar anc e of bias” argum ent on app eal, this is the governm ent’ s fir stopp ortu n ity to ch a lle n g e i t. Se e Jo ne s v . Hu l i ck, 449 F. 3d 784, 787 (7 th C ir . 20 0 6 ). Suh argu es that, because the st ate app el late court never 4 adj udi c at ed h i s “a ppea ra nc e of b ias ” c l ai m , i t s dec i s i on i s no t e n t i t l ed to an y A E D P A d efe re n ce . SeeHarr i so n v. M cBri de , 42 8 F .3d 652 , 66 5 (7th C ir. 20 05 ). C o n sistent w ith b oth Illinois and Sup re m e C ourt cas e l aw , the app el lat e c ourt add res se d 

### (continued...) N o w, o n a ppea l, S uh ha s aba ndo ne d the a r g um en t th atthe r e was a c o ve r - up a nd he do es no t di spu te the sta te cour t’ s f actualfi nd i ng tha t J ud ge M or ri sse y was una w are o fthe r el at i o ns hi p b etwee n the Di va ne s an d O’Dubaine

. Rather, he c onte nd s t h at the due proce ss cl ause re quir es re cusal

— e v e n in th e absen ce of anypotenti alf oractual bi as

— w here i t m i ght “ appear” to an o u t s i d e r th a t th e j u d g e h a d a n in t e r e s ti n th e o u t c o me of th e c as e. T h e d ist in c tio n is cr itic al b e c au se , as w e’ll d isc u ss lat er in m or e d et ail, w h ile d i s q u a lifica tio n is requ ired bas ed on an “ap p earan ce of bias” w h e r e there is a h igh risk of ac tu al b ias , w ith ou t t h at risk d isq u ali fi cati on i s no t nec ess ar y. Because Suh n eve r prese nted the l a t t e r the o r y i n s t a t e c o ur t, i ti s p r o c e du r a l l y de f a ul t e d. Se eSt e ve ns , 489 F.3d at 8 93-94 (refusing to con side r a p ar ti cul arsupporting ar gum ent that was notpre sente d in state cou rt). Bute ve n a ss um i ngtha t we’ r e spl i tting ha i r s an d Suh’ s a rgum ent was pre ser ved, i t l acks m er it. A l though 4N o. 09

- 3946 11



### (...continued) w he the r ac t ual bi as was “pr obabl e. ” Buti tdi d notpas s on the a r gu m e ntS uh no w a dva nc e s be c a us e , a s we j us tdi s c us s e d, tha t arg u m en t w as no t pr esen ted p rev iou sly

. (I nd eed , for this re as on, Su h c oul d not

— and did n ot

— argue in the dis tr ic t c ourt th a tAE DP A d ef er e n c e wa s i n a p p l i c a b l e . ) I n a n y e v e n t, we need not decide the i ssu e b ecaus e Suh’ s argum ent f ail s und er a ny s t a nd a r d. “[ a] f ai r tr i ali n a f ai r tr ibunal i s a bas i c r equi re m ent o f d u e proces s, ” In reM ur ch i s on , 3 49 U. S

. 1 33 , 1 36 ( 19 55) , “m ost m att er s re l ating to j ud i ci aldi squal i fi cati on d[ o] not ris e to a co nsti tuti onall eve l

. ” FT Cv. Cem entInst it ute, 33 3 U

. S. 68 3, 70 2 ( 1948 )

. “Thus m att er s o fkinshi p, per sonal bi as, st ate pol i cy, r em ote ness ofi n te re st w oul d seem ge n er ally to be m at t e r s m er ely of leg isla tiv e d isc re tio n .” Tum ey v. O hio , 273 U .S. 51 0, 52 3 (1 92 7). B u t re c u sa l is re quir ed w here the j ud ge has “ a di re c t, p er sonal, subst an tia l, p ec u n iar y in te re st ” in a c as e. Id. I n a ddi ti o n, the S upr em e Co ur t ha s i den ti fi ed ce r ta i n, speci fi c i nstances r equi ring r ecusal

. One i s “ w here a j ud ge had a fi nan c ial i nter esti n the outco m e o fa case , al though the i nter estwas less than w hat would have b ee n co n sid er ed p er so n al or d ire c t a t c om m o n law .” C apert on v. A
. T
. M assey C oal C o., Inc. , 129 S. C t. 2252, 22 59- 61 (2 00 9) ( ci ti ng Tum ey, Ward v. M onroevil le, 40 9 U.S

. 57 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , a nd A et na LifeInsurance Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U

. S. 81 3 (1986)). A not h e r i s “w he re a j ud ge ha d no p ecu niary interest i n th e case bu t w as ch all en ged be cau se of a confl i ct a ri si ng fro m hi s partic ip atio n in an e ar l i erpro c e e di ng . ” Cape r t on , 12 9 S

. Ct. at22 61- 62 ( ci ti ng M ur ch i s on a nd M ayber ry v. Pennsylvania , 400 U

. S. 455 (1971)).12 N o. 09

- 3946 R ec u sa l also m ay be req u i r e d o u ts id e o f th es e s p ec ific i ns ta nc es i fthe p r o babi l i tyo fa ctua lb i as i s hi gh e no ug h. Se eCape r t on , 12 9 S. Ct. at22 63- 64 ( re quir i ng r ecusal w here “a perso n w i th a perso nal sta ke i n a parti cul ar c as e h ad a sig n ifica n t a n d d isp ro p or tio n at e in flu e n c e in pl a c i ng the j ud g e o n the c a s e b y r a i s i ng fun ds or dir ec tin g the j ud ge’ s e l ecti on ca m pai gn wh en the cas e was pe ndi ngori m m i ne nt ” be ca us e th ats i tu at i o n invo l ve d “ a se r i o us r i sko fa ctua lb i as ”)

. Butthe i ss ue bef or e us i s no t wheth er a p ote nti al l y b i asi ng i nfl uence w as str ong enough t o be c onst i tuti onal l y in to ler abl e. R ath er, becau se Suh i s not ch all en ging th e state cou rt’s f actualfi nd i ng tha t the j ud ge w as unaw ar e ofthe re l ati onshi p between hi s a cquai ntances and the m urder vi cti m , the onl y quest i on is wh etherr ecusalwas re quir ed in the absen ce of any po s s ib i l i t y o f a c t ua lbi as

— th at i s, b a s e d s ol el y on ho w the s i t ua t i o n mi g hth a v e “ a pp e a r e d” to an o utsi de obs er ver . The S up re m e Court has nev er hel d, oreven intim ate d, that the due pro cess cl ause re quir es re cusalunder s uch ci rcum sta nces, s o w e m ust answ erthe questi on in the negat i ve. M o r e o v e r, o ne o f o ur o wn de c i s i o ns ha s a l r e ady ad

dr es se d a nd r ej ec te d a v ery s im i l ara r g um en t, a lbe i t i n a h yp ot h et ica l: Su p p os e a j ud ge does not know a cl ose r el ati ve has a fi na nc i a li nt e r e s ti n a cas e h e t r i e s . T o the o ut s i de o bs er ve r a war e o fthe i nt er es t butunaw ar e o fthe j ud ge’ s la ck ofkno w l edge, i t would l oo k b ad f or the j ud ge to tr y that c ase . But i fthe j ud ge does not eve n know about the r el ati ve’ s fi nanci ali nter est, howN o. 09

- 3946 13

I nt e r e s t i ng l y, S uhc i t e d D el Vec c h io ap p ro v ing ly in his 5 di s t ri c tc our tbr i ef

. But, t o r epe at, the re he was s t i l l ar gui ng thatJ u d g e M orr i s s ey m us tha ve bee n a ware ofthe r el at i onshi p b etween the D ivanes and O ’ D ub aine. c ou ld h e b e t em p te d to u n d er m in e t h e c as e? A n d if no a ctuali ncenti ve exi sts f orthe j ud ge to be b i ase d

— if the j ud ge does not have re aso n to be parti al

— how coul d th e j ud ge’ s pre si ding ove r the t ri aldepri ve a partyof h i s r i ght t o a f ai r tr i albefor e a n i m parti al j ud ge? D e l Ve cchi o v. Il l i nois D epar t m e ntof Cor r e ct i ons , 31 F. 3d 1363 , 1371 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)

. S uh atte m pts to l im i t D el Vecchi o 5 b y s eiz in g on ge n er al s ta te m en ts in o u r su b se qu en t d ec isi ons about the “ appearance o fbi as. ” Se e, e . g. , Frankl i n v . M cC a ug htry, 3 98 F

. 3d 95 5, 9 60

- 61 ( 7th Cir

. 2 00 5) ( “[ T] he Suprem e Cour t has deci ded that

. . . the app ear ance o f bi as vi o lat e[s ] d u e p ro c es s p rin c ip les .”); B racy v. Schom ig, 28 6 F

. 3d 40 6, 41 1 ( 7th Ci r . 20 02 ) ( “[ O] r di na r i l y . . . the a p p e a r a n c e o f b i a s i s s u ffi c i e n t t o d i s q u a l i fy a j u d g e . ” )

. As m ade c l ea r b y the c as es we ci te d f o r tho se prop osit i o ns ( Tum ey, M ur ch i s on , Lavo ie, et c. ) , however, by“a pp ear ance ofbi as, ” we m eant si tuati ons i n w hich ther e was at l eas t s om e r i sk ofactual bi as base d on f acts kno w n to the j ud ge at the t i m e. W i th o uta ny c o nt r o l l i ngc as e l aw i n h i s ar se na l, S uh re l i es on Suprem e Court deci si ons i nvol vi ng th e federal re cusalst atute , 2 8 U .S.C. § 455, wh i ch r equi re s a j ud ge to di squa l i fy hi m se l fwhen ev er“ hi s i m par ti al i tymight re aso nabl y be questi oned. ” I nd eed, l anguage from those14 N o. 09

- 3946 d ec isio n s b ols te rs Su h ’s a r g u m en t. Liljeb erg v. Health Se r vice s Acq ui s i t i on Corp
. , 48 6 U.S

. 84 7, 85 9 ( 1988 ) , f or exam ple , sa ys that “ [t] he j ud ge’ s l ack ofkno w l edge o f a di squal i fyi ng ci rcum sta nce m ay bearo n the questi on of re m edy, but i t doe s no t e l i m i nate the r i sk that ‘ his i m parti al i ty m i ght r eas onabl y b e ques tioned’ byo ther perso ns. ” But the f act re m ai ns that, ther e, the Court w as i nter preting § 455, notthe due proce ss cl ause. S o Liljeb erg an d its p ro ge n y a re n oton p oin t. See Jo hn son v. C a rroll, 369 F.3d 2 5 3 , 2 62 (3d Cir. 2004) (“ Liljeb ergnei therhol ds nor su ggests that an ap p ear a n c e of bias on th e pa rt of a federa lj ud ge, witho u t m ore, vi ol ate s the Due Pro cess Clause

. ”); s e e also D a vis v . Jones , 50 6 F

. 3d 1325 , 13 36 ( 11th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( col l ec t i ngc a s e s a nd fi nd i ngtha t“ the fe der alr ecusalstat ute e stabl i shes str i ctergr ounds f ordi squa l i fi c a t i o n th a n th e Du e P r o c e s s C l a u s e ” )

. L e ft wi th no l e g a ll e g s t o s t a nd o n, S uh ’ s p e t i t i o n c a nn o tb e g r a nt e d. F o r the f o r eg o i ngr easons , the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

1- 18- 11