In some jurisdictions, a judge can only be dismissed «for cause». This means that the party who wants to remove the judge must have a good reason, such as bias. However, other jurisdictions allow a party to disqualify or remove a judge from the case on a «compelling» basis. This means that a party can request the dismissal of the judge without giving a specific reason. In such jurisdictions, such a «compelling challenge» is a unique opportunity not to allow the parties to «judge» by retiring until they find one they like. Impartiality is the cornerstone of the legal system in the United States, as civil and criminal cases fill the country`s courtrooms on a daily basis. If a case is brought before a court in which the judge has a connection or a preconceived opinion, the question of impartiality is called into question. While a judge may feel that he or she can rule fairly, the mere appearance of bias could jeopardize the case and result in an appeal against the final decision. In such a case, the judge may withdraw to apologize or withdraw from the case by handing it over to another judge.
Robert`s divorce must be submitted to Judge Hardnose, who is known to favor women in contentious divorce cases. Robert`s lawyer recommends transferring the case to another judge, although there is no evidence that he has a biased opinion in Robert`s case. To ensure that Robert receives an impartial and fair hearing, his lawyer presents an outright challenge and rejects Justice Hardnose. In this example of forfeiture, the case is referred back to the Court of Justice Equity. The High Court overturned the Kentucky Supreme Court`s decision requiring the defendant to show systematic global bias. The Landmark Supreme Court Decision in Batson v. Kentucky eased the burden of proof for allegations of bias in jury selection, stating that a defendant only has to prove the disqualification of jurors on the basis of bias in his own case. In Written Decision 7-2, Judge Lewis Powell wrote: «In the context of criminal law evidence, bias is used to describe the relationship between a party and a witness that could cause the witness to testify unconsciously or otherwise for or against a party, as in United States v.
Slough 22 F.Supp.3d 29 (2014). Jury selection is a process in which lawyers from all parties to the case interview potential jurors to eliminate those who may have bias. While each party may dismiss an unlimited number of potential jurors for cause, each party receives a limited number of convincing challenges that allow it to dismiss potential jurors without giving reasons. Nevertheless, firing potential jurors for discriminatory reasons is illegal, and a series of such dismissals can cause problems, especially for a prosecutor who participates in such dismissals. When selecting jurors for Juan`s trial, a total of eight Hispanic people are on the jury – and each of them is systematically dismissed by the prosecutor for convincing challenge. In other words, he provided no reason to dismiss the Hispanic jury. The resulting panel, composed almost exclusively of white jurors, condemns Juan. In this example of bias, whether Juan was guilty is not the question, but whether he received a fair and impartial trial from a jury chosen from a community cross-selection.
In the event that a judge suspected of bias does not withdraw, a party may attempt to exclude him or her from the case by filing a motion to withdraw or disqualify the judge. The party must have good reasons to request the disqualification of the judge. These grounds are called «grounds for rejection». Most motions to dismiss a judge are based on the judge`s bias towards one party or the positive opinion of another. A predisposition or preconceived opinion that prevents a person from impartially assessing the facts under determination; prejudice. n. the decision of a judge, arbitrator, prospective juror or person who makes a judicial decision against or in favour of one of the parties or a group of persons. This can be proven by remarks, decisions that violate facts, reason or the law, or any other unjust behavior. Prejudice can be directed against an ethnic group, homosexuals, women or men, defendants or plaintiffs, large corporations or local parties. Making a «hometown» decision is a form of bias that is the lawyer`s curse outside the city. There is also the subtle bias of some male judges in favor of pretty women. An obvious bias is a reason for a reversal of the appeal, but it is difficult to prove because judges generally take care to show obvious fairness in their comments.
The possibility of jury bias is examined during questioning at the beginning of the trial as part of a jury process called voir dire. Prejudice is feeling or showing a pre-existing inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something. If, during the voir dire, a potential juror in a lawsuit indicates bias against one of the parties, the juror may be successfully challenged for cause and a seat on the jury may be denied. Bias is an act, policy, evaluation or unfair decision that is due to certain characteristics. In the legal system, a judge or jury should make impartial decisions based on a fair and impartial examination of the facts and the law. If a judge or jury has a preconceived opinion on a party to a trial or on any of the issues, they may not be able to make a fair and impartial decision. Even in a case where jurors were chosen because none of them have a prior opinion, the judge`s bias may prevent him or her from supervising the trial fairly. PREJUDICE.
A particularly influential power that influences judgment; the tilt or inclination of the mind towards a particular object. 2. The judiciary shall require that the judge not be biased for or against any person; and that his mind should be completely free to act as required by law. 3. However, there is a type of bias that courts suffer from in influencing their judgments, namely a bias in favour of a group of cases or persons that is different from an individual case or a person. A few examples will explain it. A bias is felt for reasons of convenience. 1 Ves. Senator 13, 14; 3 Atk. 524. She also feels in favour of the legal heir, as if there were an heir on the one hand and a simple volunteer on the other.
Willes, R. 570 1 W. Bl. 256; Amb. R. 645; 1 Ball & B. 309 1 Wils. R. 310 3 Atk.
747 ID. 222. On the other hand, the court rejected the double portions for children; M`Clell. R. 356; 13 Price, R. 599 against double provisions and double satisfaction; 3 Atk. R. 421 and against confiscation.
3 T. R. 172 Empty, in general, 1 Burr. 419 1 Bos. & Shoot. 614; 3 Bos. & Shoot. 456 Ves. Jr. 648 Jacob, Rep. 115; 1 revolution.
& R. 350. A judge who is biased in a hearing he or she presides over has a mental attitude towards a party to the dispute that prevents him or her from following the trial fairly, thereby depriving the party of the right to a fair trial. A judge may withdraw to avoid the appearance of bias. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a case in which a defendant alleged that the prosecutor had committed racial harm by selecting jurors. James Kirkland Batson, a black man, was charged with burglary and receiving stolen property. When selecting the jury, the prosecutor used his emphatic challenges to free up six potential jurors, including the four blacks on the jury. Batson`s defense attorney filed a motion to dismiss the entire jury on the grounds that the prosecutor violated the defendant`s right to an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment and his right to equal protection under the law. The judge denied the request and Batson was eventually found guilty by the all-white jury. inclination; curved; Pre-domination: a preconceived notion; a predisposition to decide a cause or subject in a certain way that does not leave the mind completely open to conviction.
Maddox v. State, 32 Ga. 5S7, 79 am. 307 December; Pierson v. State, 18 Tex. ca. 55S; Hinkle v. Bundesland, 94 Ga.
595, 21 p. E. 601. This term is not synonymous with «prejudice». By using this word in a law that explained the disqualification of jurors, Parliament intended to describe a different and slightly different ground for disqualification. One person cannot be biased against another without being biased against it; but it can be biased without being biased.