8 A.3d 1215
D.C.2010Background
- M.C., a juvenile, was charged with twenty offenses related to a shooting; bench trial held November–December 2007.
- Trial judge received two ex parte emails from another judge containing information about a government witness (I.W.).
- Judge disclosed that emails contained information about I.W.’s conduct; defense moved for recusal, denied as untimely.
- I.W. testified inconsistently about the shooter; prior identification by I.W. was contradicted by trial testimony.
- The court convicted M.C. on all counts; appeal challenging denial of recusal ensued.
- Court reverses and remands for retrial before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Canon 3(E)(1)(a) requires recusal for personal knowledge | M.C. contends emails gave extrajudicial personal knowledge of disputed facts. | District argues no error or preservation issues negate recusal. | Yes; remand for retrial before a different judge. |
| Whether the denial of recusal was harmless under Liljeberg | Recusal denial prejudiced outcome given central disputed fact. | No automatic reversal; harmless error review applicable. | Not harmless; retrial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (special harmless error test for recusal)
- Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745 (D.C. 1989) (en banc; appearance of impartiality; harmless error framework)
- Belton v. United States, 581 A.2d 1205 (D.C. 1990) (objective observer standard for impartiality; Canon 3(E)(1) applied)
- Plechner v. Widener College, Inc., 569 F.2d 1250 (3d Cir. 1977) (distinguishes personal knowledge from routine credibility judgments)
- In re Bell, 373 A.2d 232 (D.C. 1977) (extrajudicial source of information; personal knowledge)
- York v. United States, 785 A.2d 651 (D.C. 2001) (recusal when personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts)