Opinion ID: 1436726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Recusal Motions

Text: In the meantime, in October 2006, Basciano filed a motion requesting that Judge Garaufis recuse himself from presiding over Basciano's capital case. See Motion for Recusal, Basciano, No. 05-cr-0060 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2006) (the 2006 Motion). He renewed this motion in June 2007, in connection with his habeas petition, and again in February 2008, following the government's notice that it intended to introduce Basciano's list of names during a potential penalty phase of trial, and that it might also introduce the list as evidence during the guilt phase, see Motion for Hearing or Alternately for Recusal of the Court, Basciano, No. 05-cr-0060 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2008) (the 2008 Motion). The district court denied all of these motions. In an order dated November 30, 2006, responding to the 2006 Motion, the court determined that recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which provides that [a]ny... [federal] judge ... shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, was not warranted. United States v. Basciano, Nos. 03-cr-929, 05-cr-060, 2006 WL 3483924, at -, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86533, at  (E.D.N.Y. Nov.30, 2006) (Garaufis, J. ). Observing that Basciano was a sophisticated party as evidenced by his regular replacement of counsel, and that the first recusal motion followed both his racketeering conviction and statement to his wife about seeking a different judge, id. at , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86533, at - (internal quotation marks omitted), the district court found that Basciano had sought to engineer the judge's recusal, id. at , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86533, at  (internal quotation marks omitted). In the absence of actual bias manifested by the court, the court concluded that a reasonable person would not reasonably question th[e] court's impartiality. Id. at , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86533, at . In a memorandum and order dated March 24, 2008, responding to a motion for a new trial, the district judge reaffirmed his decision not to recuse himself and added that neither that decision nor his denial of habeas relief created an appearance of partiality sufficient to call into question the fairness of Basciano's retrial. United States v. Basciano, No. 03-CR-0929, 2008 WL 794945, at , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23107, at  (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2008) (Garaufis, J.). The court noted that the defendant had pointed to decisions adverse to him, but had failed to identify any pattern of actions by the court that would contribute to an appearance of an absence of impartiality. Id. at , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23107, at . The court reaffirmed its recusal decision yet again, for substantially the same reasons, in an order dated April 3, 2008. See Order Denying Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Renewed Motion for Recusal as to Vincent Basciano, Basciano, No. 05-cr-0060 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2008). Basciano then filed in this Court the instant petition seeking a writ of mandamus.