Legal Document

Cite as: 580 U. S. ____ (2017) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICHAEL DAMON RIPPO, PETITIONER v. RENEE BAKER, WARDEN ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO NEVADA No. 16–6316. Decided March 6, 2017 PER CURIAM. A Nevada jury convicted petitioner Michael Damon Rippo of first-degree murder and other offenses sen- tenced him to death. During his trial, received information that the judge was target a federal bribery probe, he surmised Clark County District Attorney’s Office—which prosecuting him— playing role in investigation. moved for judge’s disqualification under Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, contending could not impartially adjudicate case which one parties criminally investigating him. But trial declined recuse himself, (after indictment on charges) different later denied Rippo’s motion new trial. The Su- preme Court affirmed direct appeal, reasoning part had introduced evidence state authori- ties were involved State, 113 Nev. 1239, 1246–1250, 946 P.2d 1017, 1023– 1024 (1997) ( per curiam). In application postconviction relief, advanced bias claim once more, this time point- ing documents from criminal indicating district attorney’s office participated investigation judge. See, e.g., App. Pet. Cert. 236–237, 397. court Supreme affirmed. 132 ___, 368 P.3d 729, 743–745 (2016). It 2 RIPPO BAKER likened “camouflaging bias” theory discussed Bracy Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997). argued who accepts bribes rule favor some defendants would seek disguise favorable treatment by ruling against did bribe Id., at 905. We ex- plained despite “speculative” nature theory, entitled discovery because also alleged specific facts suggesting may have colluded with defense counsel rush petitioner’s See id., 905–909. reasoned that, contrast, or an evidentiary hearing allega- tions “d[id] support assertion actually biased case.” Nev., P. 3d, 744.* vacate Court’s judgment be- cause it applied wrong legal standard. Under our precedents, sometimes de- mand recusal even when “ ‘ha[s] no actual bias.’ ” Aetna Life Ins. Co. Lavoie, 475 813, 825 (1986). Recusal is required when, objectively speaking, “the prob- ability deci- sionmaker too high be constitutionally tolerable.” Withrow Larkin, 421 35, 47 (1975); see Williams Pennsylvania, 579 ___ (2016) (slip op., 6) (“The asks whether harbors actual, subjective bias, but instead whether, as objective mat- ter, average position likely neu- —————— * further relied its holding determine established prejudice overcome various procedural bars. 745. Because below invoke any state-law grounds “independent merits [Rippo’s] constitutional challenge,” we jurisdiction review resolution law. Foster Chatman, 578 8). 3 tral, there unconstitutional potential (internal quotation marks omitted)). Our decision contrary: Although explained pointed hold litigant must show matter course “actually [the litigant’s] case,” 744— much less do so here, does allege bias.” ask question precedents require: considering all circumstances al- leged, risk tolerable. As result, grant petition writ certiorari leave proceed forma pauperis, remand proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered.

Classification Label: 3