United States v. Andrew Modjewski, 783 F.3d 645

Modjewski pled guilty to three counts of possession and transportation of electronic child pornography, with a massive collection (over 12,500 images and 700 videos).
At sentencing, Modjewski presented Dr. Lisa Rone, who testified to PTSD, bipolar disorder, and that Modjewski was not a pedophile, based on one meeting and without reviewing images.
The district court judge asked extensive questions of Dr. Rone about pedophilia and the DSM-5 diagnosis during the sentencing hearing.
Defense counsel did not object to the questioning, aside from occasional relevance objections, and redirect followed the judge’s interrogation.
The judge stated she did not need to or would not make a pedophilia finding for sentencing, but ultimately described Modjewski as pedophilically identified, influencing the Court’s view of risk factors.
Modjewski was sentenced to 15 years, under the guideline range, with three mitigators noted; after sentence, the government asked if other issues should be raised, and Modjewski’s counsel mentioned only treatment programs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district judge should have recused sua sponte	Modjewski: § 455(a) and (b)(1) require recusal for bias or personal knowledge.	Modjewski: judge’s questioning showed bias or personal knowledge.	Recusal not required; questioning and knowledge did not rise to bias.
Whether the judge’s questioning amounted to improper bias to require recusal	Modjewski: judge acted as advocate, showing personal bias.	Modjewski: questioning compromised neutrality.	No reversible bias; questioning within sentencing gatekeeping role.
Whether the pedophilic identification finding was reliable and permissible	Rone’s testimony supported not being a pedophile; judge relied on her opinion.	Judge’s own conclusion about pedophilic identification was unreliable and unsupported by Daubert standards.	Finding was speculative and error; not likely to affect sentence.
Whether mitigation arguments were addressed or waived	Defendant argued court failed to address mitigation points.	Court addressed many mitigation factors; remaining points were waived.	Arguments were addressed or waived; no reversal on mitigation grounds.

Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd., 299 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2002) (recusal standards and bias standards in appeals)
Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2010) (timeliness and scope of recusal review on appeal)
United States v. Webb, 83 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 1996) (judge questioning in non-jury proceedings; sentencing context)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (gatekeeping reliability of expert testimony)
United States v. Vallone, 698 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2012) (judge questions to question reliability of expert testimony)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (bias standards require extreme favoritism to overturn)
United States v. Garthus, 652 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011) (courts may reject expert testimony based on reliability concerns)
United States v. Miller, 601 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2010) (reversal when sentencing relied on unsupported beliefs)
In re Bergeron, 636 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2011) (recusal and procedural timing considerations)