Opinion ID: 2273339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Assignment of the Case on Remand

Text: As we noted at the outset ( see p. 1207, supra ), D.E.'s gender-based assignment to a particular judge, as well as the exclusion of the testimony of one of the witnesses D.E. wanted to call in her defense, may leave lingering concerns that might affect D.E.'s and the public's perception of the proceedings on remand. Our court has not had occasion to analyze in detail the factors that make it appropriate to assign a case on remand to a different judge, but we draw the Family Court's attention to the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8 (1977) (en banc). The Robin court set forth three principal factors to consider in determining whether further proceedings should be conducted before a different judge: (1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness. [6] Id. In Robin, as here, remand to a different judge would not imply any personal criticism of the trial or sentencing judge. Id. at 10. Instead, it would simply recognize that there may be cases where both for the judge's sake and the appearance of justice, an assignment to a different judge is salutary and in the public interest, especially as it minimizes even a suspicion of partiality. Id. (internal citations omitted).