“At its core, the invocation of ‘judicial impartiality’ in political discourse speaks to an ideal of fairness: an impartial judge is a person who acts in a fair manner toward all parties in a case appearing before them.”–Stuart Chinn, University of Oregon School of Law
One of the basic requirements in our system of justice is the necessity for an impartial judge. In fact, “Canon 3E/Rule 2.11(A) of the model code of judicial conduct creates a general requirement for disqualification whenever a judge’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” The model code of judicial conduct even lists “specific examples of circumstances in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These include a requirement for disqualification “if the judge has…a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer.”
It would seem that this rule of professional conduct now includes this proviso; “unless the party to be tried is Donald J. Trump.”
Last October, we discussed Federal Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who signed the search warrant for the FBI allowing the raid on Mar A Lago, despite having recused himself from hearing a civil case brought by the former President just months earlier. We noted then that “(t)he statute…the magistrate cited for his recusal states in part that a judge ‘shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ and then describes the various circumstances that could trigger such concerns. They include ‘a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts’ or prior work as a lawyer for a party involved in the case. Reinhart’s order did not specify the conflict or source of his concern for recusal.”
Apparently, Magistrate Reinhart felt he could not be fair in listening to a case brought by former President Trump, but he had no problem with allowing federal agents to search the former First Ladies’ underwear draw, as well as the rest of the Trump’s Florida residence.
Reinhart is not the only clearly biased judge who has been called upon to decide the fate of Donald Trump. Today we consider the Judge appointed to hear Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Second Federal Indictment of the former President – Washington DC District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.
According to the DC District Court’s webpage, “Chutkan was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in June 2014. Born in Kingston, Jamaica, she received her B.A. in Economics from George Washington University and her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.” A former Public Defender, Judge Chutkan specialized in white collar crime and antitrust litigation after she left the Public Defender’s Office.
Coincidentally, she just happens to be the judge who has handled the majority of defendants arrested and prosecuted as a result of the Capitol Riot on January 6, 2021. As reported by NBC News, “Chutkan, an Obama appointee who has served on the bench for nearly a decade, quickly established a reputation for imposing some of the toughest penalties on rioters who participated in the 2021 attack on the Capitol. In December 2021, Chutkan gave what was then the longest sentence — just over five years — to a Florida man who had been charged with dispensing a fire extinguisher and throwing it at police during the attack. ‘It has to be made clear that trying to violently overthrow the government, trying to stop the peaceful transition of power, and assaulting law enforcement officers in that effort is going to be met with absolutely certain punishment,’ Chutkan said at the time.”
There is no question that someone who throws a fire extinguisher at police officers deserves a jail sentence. But notice the language used by Judge Chutkan; she clearly indicates her belief that the Capitol Riot was a violent attempt to overthrow the government, not a demonstration that got out of hand.
However, “(a)ccording to an analysis from NPR’s investigative team, as of July 2023, Chutkan had given prison sentences to all of the 38 Jan. 6 defendants to come before her, even though prosecutors had only recommended 34 of them for prison. That stands in contrast to the other judges in Jan. 6 cases who have tended to be more lenient at sentencing.”
The report concludes tomorrow
Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC
Illustration: Pixabay