Opinion ID: 2424396
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Promoting confidence in the judiciary is a critically important goal of recusal.

Text: The United States Supreme Court has addressed the importance of objective perceptions in the context of recusal motions. In Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., [29] the Supreme Court decided a case in which, nearly a year after trial, the parties learned for the first time that the judge had a potential conflict that could have been the basis for disqualification at trial. [30] The losing party promptly filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment. [31] The trial judge denied the motion, but the appellate court remanded the case for a different judge to determine the extent and timing of the trial judge's knowledge of the potential conflict. [32] On remand, the new judge determined that at some point before trial, the trial judge had actual knowledge of the information that formed the basis for the potential conflict. [33] The new judge also found, however, that by the time of trial the trial judge had forgotten that information and never recalled it until after he had already rendered his opinion in the case. [34] On appeal from the remand, the Fifth Circuit ruled, on the basis of apparent impropriety under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), [35] that the trial judge should have recused himself and vacated the judgment as soon as he regained knowledge of the information underlying the potential conflict. [36] On certiorari review, the Supreme Court clarified that scienter is not an element of the required objective assessment of the appearance of bias. [37] Specifically, the Court noted that a judge's lack of knowledge of a disqualifying circumstance does not eliminate the risk that objective observers may reasonably question his impartiality. [38] Although the Court acknowledged that the trial judge had, in fact, forgotten the information underlying the potential conflict until after he issued his opinion, the Court cited popular suspicions and doubts regarding the integrity of judges as a major concern. [39] The Court explained that the federal disqualification statute intended to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety to the maximum extent possible. [40] Requiring judges to disqualify themselves on the basis of facts and circumstances that they do not know or recall would be, in the Court's words, absurd. [41] But, retroactive application of the objective test, when possible, properly requires judges to rectify an oversight and to take the steps necessary to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. [42] Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling vacating the trial court's judgment. In the immediate case, Fritzinger claims neither the judge nor the State disclosed information to him until after trial that, had he known it at trial, he could have used to support his motion for recusal. What actually happened is unclear from the record. What is clear, however, is that in any event, neither the Statewhich is presumed to know its own proffered evidencenor the trial judge disclosed that Mary's CAC interview, which the trial judge reviewed in camera, revealed that Marvinwhose mother's last name was Dallashad sexually molested her in the past. The trial judge, then, did not address the objective second prong of the Los recusal analysis. In light of these circumstances, the failure to follow the strictures of our Los precedent requires reassignment on remand. Under Los, we must assess whether an objective observer would view all the circumstances and conclude that a fair or impartial hearing was unlikely. [43] That requires us to assess the circumstances objectively to determine whether there is an appearance of bias sufficient to cause doubt about judicial impartiality. [44] Assessing the totality of the circumstances of this case as a reasonable objective observer would, we determine, in light of the information Fritzinger discovered post-trial, which the trial judge did not address, that a reassignment of the case is necessary to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.