[ad_1]
Recusal is the act of leaving or asking someone to leave a trial or judicial decision due to personal interest in the case. Judges are expected to recuse themselves if they have any personal interest that could harm their impartiality. Lawyers can also seek recusal from a judge they feel is unlikely to make a fair decision. Juries and lawyers can also be recused. Personal relationships, previous involvement, bias, or financial interest are common reasons for recusal.
Recuse is a verb that means to leave or ask someone to leave participating in a trial or judicial decision based on some sort of personal interest in a case. The term is most frequently used when judges self-recuse because their interest in a case harms their impartiality. Sometimes jurors or advocates are challenged, and in either case, justified may be a more appropriate term. Recusare is based on the Latin word recusare, which roughly translates as “refuse for a cause.” Recusal is the noun form of this word.
Judges are expected to recuse themselves if they have a personal interest in a case or decision that affects their ability to judge it fairly. Different types of interest include strong personal relationships with any party in a trial, previous involvement in an ongoing case in another capacity, bias in the matter at hand, or financial interest in the outcome of a case. Since the judge’s job is to hear a case fairly, any special interest in it that might create prejudice is undesirable, and a judge is supposed to always acknowledge that interest and recuse himself.
Examples of judicial recusal are frequent. Supreme Court justices mostly recuse when they have a financial interest in the decision or if they have previously worked on a case in a lower court. In many small towns, it’s not uncommon for judges to have personal relationships with parties to a trial or to be related to someone involved in a case. This question is not always clear; judges who work for a long time in the same court tend to know lawyers who defend cases and may know some of them socially. Unless these ties are romantic or familial, personal knowledge of an attorney isn’t necessarily a reason for recusal, though some argue it confers a disadvantage on attorneys who aren’t related.
Lawyers can also seek recusal from a judge they feel is unlikely to make a fair decision. Sometimes judges aren’t aware of a conflict of interest until a trial begins, or they don’t feel that the conflict is enough. Lawyers can report the conflict and ask for a different judge, but usually must first offer a judge an opportunity to recuse himself. Going to a higher court to seek a judge’s recusal could cause negative political consequences, although some lawyers have successfully achieved this.
Juries and occasionally lawyers are recused. A juror tells a judge why he cannot fairly decide a case and the reasons are similar to those used by a judge. Lawyers may also have vested interests in cases that go beyond or conflict with providing proper service to their clients. This scenario can especially occur when a court assigns cases to lawyers. Any attorney with a personal interest in the opposing side, such as a financial investment or kinship, should recuse himself or help a client find an attorney who can represent the client without conflict.
[ad_2]