Court Opinion

ID: 9470075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:56:40.582351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:43.241347
License: Public Domain

ROSENN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority and join in that portion of part I of their opinion that discusses disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b) and I join in part II of the opinion dealing with the due process issue.
I write separately, however, because it is not clear on the record in this case that the defendant elected to waive the general disqualification provision contained in section 455(a) of the statute. It appears that shortly before the defendant’s trial was to begin, the district court called counsel into his chambers and advised them that he was a “substantial holder of INA stock.” The court expressed the belief that this provided “no basis for recusal,” and counsel for defendant Nobel replied that from his own research he had reached the same conclusion. The majority concedes that in this discussion the parties and the district court were focusing their attention on section 455(b)(4) and did not address the disqualification requirements of section 455(a). At 236. Indeed, even the Government acknowledged this point in its brief:
[T]he government will not argue to this Court that Nobel waived his right to seek disqualification under Section 455(a). The government believes that there is some force to Nobel’s argument (Brief at 13-14) that the colloquy did not specifically address disqualification under Section 455(a) .... Accordingly, the government does not argue here that Nobel waived the protection of Section 455(a).
Because there is ho dispute between the parties to this case as to whether Nobel waived his rights under section 455(a), I believe it is extremely ill-advised for this court to use the instant case as a vehicle to enter into an examination of the waiver question and ultimately to dispose of the case on a ground that the United States has seen fit to concede.
It is important to remember that the entire thrust of the disqualification statute is to impose on the judge an independent duty to consider whether his participation in the case will raise questions concerning his impartiality. Even if neither party raises the disqualification question, the judge must do so sua sponte. Roberts v. Bailar, 625 F.2d 125, 128 (6th Cir.1980); United States v. Schreiber, 599 F.2d 534, 539 (3d Cir.) (Seitz, C.J., concurring), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 843, 100 S.Ct. 86, 62 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979). Because the provisions of section 455 are mandatory and are addressed to the trial judge, I am reluctant to conclude, as the majority does, that the mere act of proceeding to trial after disclosure of facts establishing a basis for disqualification constitutes a waiver of section 455(a). See SCA Services, Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110, 117 (7th Cir.1977). I see no need on this record to decide this difficult waiver question.
Nevertheless, I concur in the judgment reached by the majority because I do not believe that the district court’s failure to recuse himself constituted legal error under section 455(a). Although there may be circumstances in which a trial judge’s financial interest in a victim of a crime may compel his disqualification in a criminal trial, I do not believe that the record in this case establishes that the failure to disqualify under section 455(a) warrants a new trial. First, as the judge had no financial interest in the parties or in the subject matter which would have disqualified him under section 455(b), the only arguable basis for disqualification under section 455(a) would have been that his financial interest in the victim appeared to involve him emotionally in the case. But this is highly implausible under the circumstances here because the defendant had previously entered into a restitution settlement with the victim which would have made it whole. Second, because defense counsel assented to the court’s participation at trial when counsel and the trial judge discussed the ques*239tion of disqualification under section 455(b)(4), it would appear that defense counsel himself had no reason to believe that the judge would be unable to preside over the proceedings in an impartial manner. Third, the defendant’s failure to object at trial on section 455(a) grounds subjects him to a particularly heavy burden on appeal to show that the court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See United States v. Schreiber, supra, 599 F.2d 534. Although in retrospect the district court could have avoided this challenge to his participation by recusing himself, I do not think his failure to do so under the circumstances in this case rises to the level of “plain error” that the defendant must establish to obtain a new trial.
I therefore concur in the result reached by the majority and would affirm the judgment of the district court.