In Re MC
8 A.3d 1215
D.C.2010Background
- M.C., a fifteen-year-old, was charged with twenty crimes in a bench trial in the District of Columbia Superior Court in 2007.
- Two eyewitnesses, I.W. and N.W., identified M.C. as the shooter; the case relied heavily on their testimony due to lack of physical evidence.
- During trial, the judge disclosed she had received two ex parte emails from another judge containing information about I.W.
- M.C. moved to recuse under Canon 3(E)(1); the judge denied the motion, stating it was untimely, and she could compartmentalize the extrajudicial information.
- M.C. was found guilty on all counts; he timely appealed asserting improper recusal and biased trial conduct.
- The DC Court of Appeals reversed, holding the judge was required to recuse under Canon 3(E)(1)(a) and remanded for retrial before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Canon 3(E)(1)(a) required recusal. | M.C. contends the judge had personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts about I.W.’s recantation. | The District argues no recusal was required if the information could be compartmentalized and did not affect credibility evaluations. | Recusal required under Canon 3(E)(1)(a). |
| Whether the recusal issue was properly preserved and the standard of review. | Canon 3(E) claim was preserved as a challenge to impartiality during trial. | The District contends the subsection (a) claim was not preserved and should be plain error reviewed. | Court applied preservation and, if needed, Liljeberg special harmless error test; reversal affirmed. |
| Was the extrajudicial information about I.W. disqualifying as personal knowledge and a disputed evidentiary fact? | Emails provided extrajudicial, material facts about a key witness’s motive for recantation. | Information was not tied to the merits and could be kept separate from trial. | Emails constituted personal knowledge of a disputed evidentiary fact; recusal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (special harmless error test for Judge recusal decisions)
- Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745 (D.C.1989) (appearance of impartiality and harmless error framework)
- In re Bell, 373 A.2d 232 (D.C.1977) (extrajudicial source as basis for disqualification)
- Plechner v. Widener College, Inc., 569 F.2d 1250 (3d Cir.1977) (distinction between credibility judgments and disputed facts)
- York v. United States, 785 A.2d 651 (D.C.2001) (recusal when judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts)