CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Court Control of Proceedings
......Judicial Bias
10 Cards On This Topic:

Due Process Clause requires elected judge to recuse himself from case involving a campaign donor where likely potential for bias.

D could not raise issue of disqualification on appeal or argue J was biased when, at the outset and after full disclosure, he and his attorney agreed J was not biased.

None of the trial court's remarks in isolation or in the aggregate showed judicial bias or denied D his right to a fair trial.

Where no hostility between court and defense and no extensive disparaging remarks, D forfeited judicial bias claim based on two court remarks because timely admonition could have cured potential prejudice.

To the extent trial court's comments to defense counsel were a reflection of frustration and irritation at counsel's repeated efforts to elicit inadmissible hearsay, they were not improper.

Judge 1's continuing to preside over case for an afternoon after discovering he knew two prospective witnesses did not violate CCP 170.3(a)(1) nor D's due process right to an impartial judge.

While actual bias not required to disqualify judge under DP clause, mere appearance of bias insufficient—there must be probability of actual bias by decisionmaker that is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.

Although issue waived, fact that judge permitted DA to place information on record after trial did not show bias as he permitted both sides to do so; record contained no hint of judicial bias.

Summary denial of D's Caperton motion was not a DP violation where motion was consistent with D's "game plan to jettison" the trial judge and filed in bad faith.

None of the trial court's remarks in isolation or in the aggregate showed judicial bias or denied D his right to a fair trial.