In re People, 2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 40

People of the Virgin Islands filed a July 26, 2011 petition seeking mandamus or supervisory relief to compel the Nominal Respondent to recuse from Ward's underlying criminal matter.
Ward was convicted at first trial of first-degree murder, third-degree assault, and use of a dangerous weapon; a new-trial was granted on Brady grounds by the Nominal Respondent on August 6, 2009.
In a July 23, 2010 order, the Nominal Respondent ordered a second new-trial finding the evidence weak and the witnesses not credible; the People challenged this by seeking recusal.
A May 26, 2011 order precluded two prosecution witnesses from testifying; the People appealed that ruling, and a related direct appeal remains pending.
The People argued the Nominal Respondent’s interrogatories and independent investigation required recusal; the court noted Stevens v. People requires independent weighing of evidence and declined recusal.
The court denied mandamus and declined to exercise supervisory authority, finding no clear and indisputable right to recusal and no basis to substitute a different remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel recusal.	Petition shows Nominal Respondent's ongoing investigation requires recusal.	No clear, ministerial duty to recuse; Stevens permits independent weighing, not mandatory recusal.	Denied; mandamus not appropriate.
Whether the People had a clear and indisputable right to mandamus based on recusal.	Recusal is required due to bias and ongoing inquiry.	No statute or authority mandates recusal here.	Denied; right not clear and indisputable.
Whether the court should exercise supervisory power to remove the Nominal Respondent.	Inherent supervisory authority supports removal due to bias/investigation.	Petition insufficiently argued factors or standards for supervisory relief.	Declined to exercise supervisory authority.
Whether there were adequate procedural avenues to challenge the interrogatories and rulings prior to the recusal request.	Interrogatories infringe on prosecutorial province; mandamus is proper.	Other avenues (contempt and appeals) were available; mandamus not warranted.	Not dispositive; alternatives exist and relief not warranted.
Whether the court should treat the weight-of-the-evidence new-trial ruling as grounds for recusal.	Weight-of-evidence ruling reveals belief in innocence; recusal compelled.	Stevens allows independent weighing but does not require recusal on this basis.	Not a basis to compel recusal.

Stevens v. People, 52 V.I. 294 (V.I. 2009) (authorizes independent weighing by the Superior Court and supports non-recourse to recusal here)
In re LeBlanc, 49 V.I. 508 (V.I. 2008) (mandamus prerequisites and avoidance of untried remedies)
In re People, 51 V.I. 374 (V.I. 2009) (appeals as relief mechanism and contempt potential in mandamus context)
In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2000) (controversy about avenues for relief and statutory timing)
United States v. Santtini, 963 F.2d 585 (3d Cir. 1992) (distinction between mandamus and prohibition)
In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992) (mandamus standard for judicial recusal context)
Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, 51 V.I. 341 (V.I. 2009) (agency treatment of supervisory authority argument)