Opinion ID: 2352739
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Move to Recuse the Trial Judge

Text: Appellant also argues that his lawyer was deficient in failing to move to recuse the trial judge due to the fact that he had presided over Appellant's prior juvenile commitment. [63] According to Appellant, the judge should have recused himself because his outside knowledge made him more likely to accept the jury's recommendation of a death sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has previously held that opinions formed by the judge on the basis of ... prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. [64] There is no evidence of antagonism here, meaning that the necessity of recusal was unlikely. Appellant points out that KRS 26A.015(2)(a) and SCR 4.3000 require a judge to disqualify himself in any proceeding where he has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings. Here, however, Appellant's criminal history was not a disputed evidentiary fact, and it did not concern the proceeding. In fact, due to Appellant's status as a minor at the time of his prior conviction, his criminal record was never entered into evidence in this case. Moreover, in Marlowe v. Commonwealth, [65] we held that a judge is not required to recuse himself based on personal knowledge about a case unless that knowledge has given rise to actual bias. In Marlowe , the trial judge heard the defendant confess his guilt in an aborted guilty plea. [66] The judge accepted a jury's recommendation to sentence the defendant to death. [67] This Court held that his decision not to recuse himself was proper because there was no evidence of actual bias or impartiality, only bare speculation. [68] Accordingly, the trial judge here was not required to recuse himself. Appellant has presented no evidence of actual bias, and no bias is apparent from the record. Thus, counsel's decision not to move for recusal was reasonable under the circumstances.