A prisoner who has been writing me for a while asked me if the obituary of his sentencing judge, which boasted of being "Known for giving long sentnces for sex offenders" or "especially tough on those convicted of domestic, sex or child abuse", is evidence of judicial bias.
Intrigued, I asked to see the newsclip; once he sent it to me, I scanned and copied it, which is posted above.
It is quite amazing to know that judges can be extremely biased and get away with it. In a 2012 interview with NPR, Steven Lubet, professor of law at Northwestern University, explained to listeners what constitutes Judicial Bias:
LUDDEN: So how do you define judicial bias?
LUBET: The courts define bias as favoritism or an inclination to favor one party to the litigation or one of the lawyers. So they exclude things like predisposition to have a certain view of the law. It needs to be personal, or directly in favor or against one side of the case.
LUDDEN: So you can't read bias in their whole history of decisions from the bench.
LUBET: Well, typically you can't read bias through their whole history of decisions. And another factor, which is directly relevant to the Zimmerman situation, is that it needs to come from something outside the case itself. This is called, sometimes, the extrajudicial source rule. So if a judge got mad at Mr. Zimmerman for something that happened in the course of the case, that would not be bias.
LUDDEN: Huh. Interesting. Now, the - is it true that the definition, though, or the parameters for deciding bias can vary from state to state?
LUBET: There is a general approach that most states follow, which is called - the issue is whether there is a reasonable question about the judge's impartiality. But some states have adopted different rules.
LUDDEN: And then what about state versus federal courts?
LUBET: A reasonable question about impartiality is the rule in federal courts...
LUDDEN: OK. Is there a most common list of allegations, a most common reason people might suggest this or allege this?
LUBET: Well, the most common one, of course, is some sort of financial relationship. That happens fairly often, and usually judges just step aside on, you know, of their own accord when something like that shows up. There's also the situation where a judge might have a relative - say the judge is sitting in criminal cases and has a child or a spouse who works for the public defender or the prosecutor or the probation department.
LUDDEN: OK. And then who decides? I mean, is it always the judge who recuses him- or herself? Is there someone who decides for them whether this is a legitimate concern and they should not hear that case?
LUBET: That's a pretty sensitive issue, actually, and it differs from state to state. Almost everywhere, motions to disqualify a judge go initially to the judge herself or himself. Then, in many places, many states, the motion would be referred to another judge, which seems to make a lot of sense, doesn't it?...
So the short answer is that predisposition is not considered bias; it seems only proven acts of favoritism or bias one party over another would be considered judicial bias. Personally, I disagree from a common sense standpoint. If a person has a "predisposition" against a particular group of people, the case would be judged according to the "predisposition" of the person. What is a predisposition of not the potenial for bias? i'm not a judgr or attorney so my opinion is just that, an opinion. Still, I feel this is unethical.
