Andrew Suh v. Guy Pierce, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 866

Suh was convicted in a Cook County bench trial of first-degree murder and armed robbery, receiving consecutive terms of 80 and 20 years.
Suh later claimed his convictions were tainted by an undisclosed relationship between Judge Morrissey and the victim’s family.
A private investigation revealed tenuous connections: Morrissey with O’Dubaine’s family and Divane relatives, though Morrissey testified he was unaware of any relationship.
Suh pursued state postconviction petitions; the state courts denied relief and found discovery futile since Morrissey lacked knowledge of any familial ties.
Suh sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court conducted depositions, concluding no due process violation since no actual bias was shown.
On appeal, Suh argued for an ‘appearance of bias’ recusal requirement even absent actual knowledge by the judge; the court assessed preservation, standard, and AEDPA deferential review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process requires recusal for appearance of bias when judge was unaware of relatedness	Suh argues appearance alone can mandate recusal.	Morrissey contends appearance lacks merit absent actual bias or known conflict.	No; appearance alone does not require recusal where no actual bias is possible.
Whether Suh procedurally defaulted the appearance-of-bias theory	Suh preserved the theory in state court and on appeal.	The theory was not properly presented in state court; default applies.	The argument is procedurally defaulted and not reviewed on the merits.

In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (Sup. Ct. 1955) (due process requires a fair tribunal; bias standards vary by context)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (S. Ct. 2009) (recusal where significant influence undermines impartiality)
Del Vecchio v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 31 F.3d 1363 (7th Cir. 1994) (appearance of bias principle limited to actual risk scenarios)
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (Sup. Ct. 1927) (recusal and bias concerns tied to direct participation and interests)
Lavoie (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie), 475 U.S. 813 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (pecuniary interests and recusal considerations in bias analysis)
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (appearance of bias and knowledge of disqualifying circumstances)
Franklin v. McCaughtry, 398 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2005) (appearance of bias generally affects disqualification inquiries)
Bracy v. Schomig, 286 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2002) (appearance of bias discussions in the Seventh Circuit context)