US ex rel. Britz v. Thieret
Decision Date | 25 May 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 90-3093.,90-3093. |
Citation | 737 F. Supp. 59 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. John BRITZ, Petitioner, v. James THIERET, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
Charles W. Hoffman and Jane Raney, Asst. Appellate Defenders, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Nathan P. Maddox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Springfield, Ill., for respondent.
A question of recusal.
Habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2254).
We asked the parties to submit their views as to the propriety of recusal of the undersigned in this case. The question arises because the undersigned — while serving on the Appellate Court of Illinois — authored the opinion reversing Petitioner's original conviction in this case, see People v. Britz, 128 Ill.App.3d 29, 83 Ill.Dec. 639, 470 N.E.2d 1059 (4th Dist.1984), aff'd 112 Ill.2d 314, 97 Ill.Dec. 768, 493 N.E.2d 575 (1986). The current petition concerns Petitioner's second conviction for the same offense — murder — which the undersigned has never before considered.
Nevertheless, we thought it advisable to seek the parties' views and authorities on the matter, even though we are well aware that the final analysis and decision on recusal falls on these shoulders alone. As we expected, counsels' observations have been helpful.
Both parties have identified 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) as the only possible statutory ground for recusal in this case; it provides that "any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The test, as the parties note, is whether there exists "`a reasonable basis' for a finding of an `appearance of partiality under the facts and circumstances' of the case." Pepsico, Inc. v. McMillen, 764 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir.1985) (quoting SCA Services, Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110, 116 (7th Cir.1977)), which in turn calls for a finding of "whether an objective, disinterested observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt that justice would be done in the case." Pepsico, 764 F.2d at 460.
With these thoughts in mind, we turn to the issue here.
An easy solution to this quandry could be found in § 455(e), which provides that "where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification." While some authority indicates that this subsection should be utilized only in "marginal cases and should be exercised with the utmost restraint," United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 745 (11th Cir.1989), the situation we find ourselves in seems marginal at best (in terms of disqualification under § 455(a)), and so we would be prepared to accept this waiver provision.
Although we appreciate Petitioner's concern, it seems misplaced here, since we are concerned not with a conflict of interest (compare the factual situation in National Union Fire Insurance), but rather the possibility of the appearance of impropriety, see Russell v. Lane, 890 F.2d 947, 948 (7th Cir.1989). Simply put, the point is that Petitioner has not waived disqualification under § 455(a), and so we must consider whether disqualification is required.
We therefore turn now to the merits.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marozsan v. US
...See also Greater Buffalo Press v. Federal Reserve Bank, 129 F.R.D. 462 (W.D.N.Y. 1990). In United States of America ex rel. John Britz v. James Thieret, 737 F.Supp. 59 (C.D.Ill.1990), Judge Richard Mills held that there was no appearance of impropriety warranting recusal when a district jud......
-
Martin v. Farley
...See also Greater Buffalo Press v. Federal Reserve Bank, 129 F.R.D. 462 (W.D.N.Y. 1990). In United States of America ex rel. John Britz v. James Thieret, 737 F.Supp. 59 (C.D.Ill.1990), Judge Richard Mills held that there was no appearance of impropriety warranting recusal when a district jud......
-
United States v. Barr
...must never ask for counsel's views, nor does it state that a judge must always recuse if he does."); United States ex rel. Britz v. Thieret, 737 F. Supp. 59, 60 (C.D. Ill. 1990) ("[W]e thought it advisable to seek the parties' views and authorities on the matter [of recusal], even though we......
-
United States v. Barr
...must never ask for counsel's views, nor does it state that a judge must always recuse if he does."); United States ex rel. Britz v. Thieret, 737 F. Supp. 59, 60 (C.D. Ill. 1990) ("[W]e thought it advisable to seek the parties' views and authorities on the matter [of recusal], even though we......