United States v. Aminov
1:23-cr-00110
S.D.N.Y.Aug 26, 2025Background
- Judge Vyskocil was presiding over a multi-defendant criminal case involving Gilead Sciences as an interested party seeking restitution.
- All defendants had pled guilty; only one remained to be sentenced, and Defendant Hernandez appealed, particularly challenging restitution awarded to Gilead.
- During the pendency of an appeal and a motion for reconsideration, Judge Vyskocil discovered shares of Gilead Sciences had been purchased in her managed brokerage account by her advisor without her knowledge.
- Judge Vyskocil immediately instructed the advisor to void these trades; she was fully divested within a day of discovering the trades and subsequently made a judicial disclosure.
- Hernandez moved for recusal citing both improper financial interest and appearance of impropriety; no other party joined in the request, but Judge Vyskocil promptly corrected a disclosure error and considered the motion.
- The court considered whether statutory exceptions on prompt divestment and transparency obviated the need for recusal, but ultimately granted recusal, prioritizing public confidence and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recusal required under § 455(b)(4) | Judge divested & followed protocol; recusal not needed | Judge's financial interest—however brief—warrants disqualification | Not warranted under § 455(b)(4) |
| Whether recusal required under § 455(a) | No actual bias; prompt disclosure & divestment; no impact | Appearance of impropriety calls for recusal to preserve confidence | Recusal granted under § 455(a) |
| Adequacy of judicial disclosure & correction | Disclosure timely & full; typo errors corrected | Delay in disclosure supports objective appearance concern | No nefarious delay; delay explained |
| Effect of divestment before substantive acts | No substantive decisions made while holding shares | Even brief ownership during pending matter undermines appearance | Recusal still appropriate under facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Litovich v. Bank of Am. Corp., 106 F.4th 218 (2d Cir. 2024) (recusal may be required even after prompt divestment to avoid appearance of impropriety)
- In re Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 861 F.2d 1307 (2d Cir. 1988) (judge is obligated not to recuse where not called for, as well as to recuse when required)
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 343 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2003) (Section 455(a) applies to appearances of partiality, even absent actual bias)
- Hardy v. United States, 878 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1989) (Section 455(a) intended to promote public confidence by avoiding appearances of impropriety)