Defendant challenges district court's failure to consider the exhibits. While refusing to consider them would be an abuse of discretion, court finds that the district court did not completely ignore the exhibits. Since the district court found them irrelevant, the court must have considered them. The supreme court reviewed the exhibits and found no basis for granting relief to the defendant. He bases his argument on the fact that the judge called witnesses, knew information about the defendant that was not in the record, and had an ex parte conversation with the psychiatrist who evaluated defendant's competency.
Court finds no merit to the argument.
Judge contacted psychiatrist only to clarify his findings. Judge called staff regarding whether counsel had requested more than one day for the hearing. The supreme court disapproved of the procedure, but did not perceive any bias behind the action. The information which the judge had about the defendant was acquired in the course of judicial proceedings. Therefore, it was not error for the district judge to refuse to recuse himself.