Opinion ID: 2557847
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inquiries Regarding Judicial Impartiality Are Case Specific.

Text: Canon 2 of the Delaware Judges' Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes generally that a judge should avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. [12] The Code of Judicial Conduct also instructs judges to avoid participation in proceedings by disqualifying themselves whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. [13] A judge may act in utmost good faith, yet nevertheless an appearance of impropriety may still arise. [14] Any inquiry into the question of whether a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned is case specific. [15] Under Delaware's capital punishment procedures, a jury must find the existence of at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt and determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. [16] The jury vote on each question, however, is only a recommendation to the sentencing judge, who must engage in the same analysis and independently exercise ultimate sentencing responsibility. [17] Because the ultimate fixing of the sentence is in the hands of the trial judge, the risk that injustice might arise from a judge participating in a proceeding despite the appearance of partiality is particularly acute in a capital murder prosecution. [18] The standard in appearance of impropriety cases is objective. In that context, we must not examine whether or not the trial judge was actually influenced by bias. Instead, we examine whether his conduct created the unacceptable risk that a reasonable observer would so conclude. [19]