Opinion ID: 4541620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶15 The right to an impartial judge is fundamental to our notion of due process. State v. Goodson, 2009 WI App 107, ¶8, 320 Wis. 2d 166, 771 N.W.2d 385; see also Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009) (It is axiomatic that '[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.' (alteration in original) (quoted source omitted)); U.S Const. amends. V, XIV; Wis. Const. art. I, § 8. Whether Judge Bitney's partiality can reasonably be questioned is a matter of law that we review de novo. Goodson, 320 Wis. 2d 166, ¶7. ¶16 We presume that a judge has acted fairly, impartially, and without bias. State v. Herrmann, 2015 WI 84, ¶24, 364 Wis. 2d 336, 867 N.W.2d 772; Goodson, 320 Wis. 2d 166, ¶8. To overcome that presumption, the burden is on the party asserting judicial bias to show bias by a preponderance of the evidence. Herrmann, 364 Wis. 2d 336, ¶24. If a party rebuts this presumption and shows a due process violation, the error is structural and not subject to a harmless error analysis. See Williams v. Pennsylvania, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1899, 1909 (2016) ([A]n unconstitutional failure to recuse constitutes structural error . . . .).