Opinion ID: 2166559
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Risk of Undermining the Public's Confidence in the Judicial Process

Text: The circumstances of Judge Amundson's theft from the trust have been widely publicized. As noted above, Judge Amundson's actions present a reasonable question about the impartiality of his decision in Powell. Thus, there is much reason to believe that the risks of weakening the public's trust in the judicial branch from allowing the decision to stand are significant. Indeed, this factor weighs more heavily in the instant case than it does in most other disqualification decisions involving judicial conflicts. Whereas the judges in Desnick, Liljeberg, Sturdivant, Goodheart, Aetna and other similar cases had connections that could have implicated their civil litigation or other property interests, Judge Amundson is unique in having criminal liability potentially turn on maintaining a beneficial relationship with the Rider Bennett firm. This distinction makes the appearance of impropriety in this case more troublesome, and it substantially increases the risk that Judge Amundson's participation in the appeal would undermine the public's confidence in the judicial process. Therefore, we conclude that third factor weighs in favor of vacatur. Applying the Liljeberg factors to Judge Amundson's participation in the Powell appeal, we conclude that the risk of prejudice to Powell is substantial and that the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the judicial process is also significant. Accordingly, we hold that the court of appeals erred, we reverse its June 17, 2002, order, and we vacate its July 11, 2000, Powell opinion. III. Having decided that the court of appeals' opinion should be vacated, we are left with the question of the proper forum for remand. Powell argues that the district court's errors were so egregious that the case should be remanded to the district court, essentially to start over. In the alternative, she seeks a remand to the court of appeals for another full argument on the issues raised by her appeal. While we agree with Powell that we have the power, under Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 102 and our supervisory role, to remand this case to the district court, we conclude that the court of appeals is the proper place for the remand because it was the appellate process that was tainted by the failure of Judge Amundson to disqualify himself from participation. Order denying motion to vacate reversed, opinion of July 11, 2000, vacated, and appeal remanded to the court of appeals for redetermination. GILBERT, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.