Opinion ID: 2168800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Biased Tribunal

Text: A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955). Hence, to satisfy due process, the judge must be impartial. Id. Opinions that a judge forms during a trial do not show a lack of impartiality unless they show a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994); Bowling v. Commonwealth, 168 S.W.3d 2, 12 (Ky.2004). For example, this Court has held that a judge's mere comment to several jurors that they had done the right thing in their sentencing recommendation did not show that a fair sentencing was impossible, and that, consequently, the defendant was not denied due process. Bowling, 168 S.W.3d at 12; see also United States v. Battle, 235 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1348 (N.D.Ga.2001). In this case, Appellant was not denied a fair trial in a fair tribunal. The evidence of bias is no greater in this case than it was in Bowling: the judge merely expressed approval of the jury's findings and recommendation. The judge told the jury that he would have found exactly the same as [they] found and that Appellant's misdemeanor conviction was [c]ertainly worth the sentence the jury recommended. As in Bowling, this does not show that a fair sentencing was impossible. Cf. Bowling, 168 S.W.3d at 12. Indeed, the judge expressed skepticism about the jury's other findings, stating that he was not sure I'd have found him guilty in regard to a felony ... given the circumstances and evidence. The record thus shows nothing more than the judge's candid remarks that he agreed with some of the jury's findings and that he might not have decided the same on some others. His comments that the jury had made the right decision with its sentencing recommendation was unwise, but not reflective of personal bias against Appellant. Battle, 235 F.Supp.2d at 1348. Accordingly, Appellant was not denied due process.