Opinion ID: 1166598
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: New Judge

Text: In his third due process claim, appellant challenges Judge Occhipinti's impartiality in convicting and sentencing him for contempt and claims that the judge should have disqualified himself on this issue. In Continental Insurance, Cos., supra, at 406, we held that where the trial court indicated no personal rancor toward the attorney there is no reason for the trial court to disqualify itself. The contemnor's conduct need not be directly disrespectful towards or critical of the judge to cause the type of rancor which warrants disqualification, since contemptuous conduct, though short of personal attack, may still provoke a trial judge and so embroil him in controversy, that he cannot be impartial. Taylor v. Hayes, supra at 501, 94 S.Ct. at 2704. In Taylor the court further held that the test for whether a new judge is needed is not only actual bias but `such a likelihood of bias or an appearance of bias that the judge was unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused.' 418 U.S. at 501, 94 S.Ct. at 2704. The Supreme Court found that since the record reflected a running controversy between the attorney and Judge Hayes in which the judge displayed an increasingly unfavorable personal attitude toward Taylor, the contempt issue should have been adjudicated by another judge. Appellant argues that the transcript reflects a running controversy and points to the following remarks: THE COURT: (At the time of appellant's first objection to the court's voir dire) Now I don't wish to reflect on your experience or lack of it, or your perceptivity or lack of it, but you have asked more questions of the same juror, who has answered the same thing  I think it's almost insulting to a juror.       THE COURT: (At the final hearing on appellant's motions) [Y]ou initially began, in my opinion, to harrass the court by moving that the defense table be moved to the other side. As I say, I don't know where the hell you started, but  that commenced it. We do not find these remarks to be indicative of the degree of personal rancor necessary to warrant a judge's disqualification from hearing a contempt.