recuse

(redirected from recusals)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus.

Recuse

To disqualify or remove oneself as a judge over a particular proceeding because of one's conflict of interest. Recusal, or the judge's act of disqualifying himself or herself from presiding over a proceeding, is based on the Maxim that judges are charged with a duty of impartiality in administering justice.

When a judge is assigned to a case, she reviews the general facts of the case and determines whether she has any conflict of interest concerning the case. If a conflict of interest exists, the judge may recuse herself on her own initiative. In addition, any party in a case may make a motion to require the judge to recuse herself from hearing the case. The initial presiding judge usually determines whether or not the apparent conflict requires her recusal, and the judge's decision is given considerable deference. Some jurisdictions, however, require another judge to decide whether or not the presiding judge should be disqualified. If a judge fails to recuse himself when a direct conflict of interest exists, the judge may later be reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined by the body that oversees Judicial Administration. In addition, in some cases where a judge presides over a matter in which he has a direct conflict of interest, any criminal conviction or civil damage award in the case may be reversed or set aside.

Generally, a judge must recuse himself if he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party to the lawsuit or has personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in the proceeding. The Code of Judicial Conduct, a judicial ethics code drafted by the American Bar Association in 1972 and adopted by most states and the federal government, outlines situations in which a judge should disqualify himself from presiding over a matter. Canon 3C of the Judicial Code outlines these situations, including the judge's personal bias or prejudice toward a matter or its participants, personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in a case, a professional or familial relationship with a party or an attorney, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. Most interpretations of the code mandate a judge's disqualification or recusal if any of these factors are present.

In some cases the parties to a proceeding may waive the judge's disqualification and allow the judge to preside over the case. The judge's disqualification is waived when both parties agree to the waiver or when one or more of the parties continues to participate in the proceedings.

The term recusation was at one time considered an exception to jurisdiction, the effect of which was to disqualify the particular judge by reason of the judge's interest or prejudice in the proceeding.

Further readings

Abramson, Leslie W. 1992. Studies of the Justice System: Judicial Disqualification Under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 2d ed. Chicago, Ill.: American Judicature Society.

Comisky, Marvin, and Philip C. Patterson. 1987. The Judiciary—Selection, Compensation, Ethics and Discipline. New York: Quorum Books.

Cross-references

Canons of Judicial Ethics; Judicial Conduct.

recuse

v. to refuse to be a judge (or for a judge to be requested by one of the parties to step aside) in a lawsuit or appeal because of a conflict of interest or other good reason (acquaintanceship with one of the parties, for example). It also applies to a judge or prosecutor being removed or voluntarily removing himself/herself from a criminal case in which he/she has a conflict of interest, such as friendship or known enmity to the defendant. (See: recusal)

recuse

to remove from participation in a court case because of potential prejudice.
References in periodicals archive ?
Extending the time judges have to rule on reconsideration motions of prior recusal rulings from 20 to 30 days.
Adding language to the rule saying that a judge granting a recusal motion is not making an admission or acknowledgment that any of the claims in the motion are true.
69) is the most recent Supreme Court statement of constitutional (70) principles about recusal and a fair trial.
89) dealt with recusal because of a trial judge's connection to a nonparty which would benefit financially from the judge's decision.
35) The Court explained that states can require recusals even where due process implications are not involved: "States may choose to 'adopt recusal standards more rigorous than due process requires.
80) Courts need a standardized approach to recusals, one that would never allow a recused judge to intentionally--or unintentionally--decide the ultimate issue.
duty-focused alternative to contemporary recusal law by first
judicial recusal based on Jewish law's moralizing, duty-oriented
60) Large numbers of recusals or absences by future Justices could, in principle, lead to a substantial number of 4-4 splits, but that prospect is, for now, only hypothetical.
65) And in the sorts of cases in which we might expect recusals to be correlated--such as disputes over judicial pay or cases that involve so many corporate parties that multiple Justices can be expected to have a financial stake or a substantial prior relationship with at least one of them (66)--retired Justices would probably also recuse themselves.
The nebulous recusal standards articulated in Caperton and found in state statutory and ethics codes reflect our nation's failure to adequately protect judicial independence.
In doing so, this Note addresses the current legal principles surrounding judicial recusal in state systems with elected judges, the impact of judicial campaigns and fundraising on those principles, and how those principles should be changed.