United States v. Suchit, 267 F. Supp. 3d 140

In 2005 defendants kidnapped and killed Balram Maharaj; seven defendants tried by jury in 2009 and convicted; life sentences imposed in 2011; direct appeals affirmed and certiorari denied.
Four cooperating witnesses (Gittens, Joseph, Percival, Nurse) testified at trial; they later received varying benefits and sentences; the government disclosed post-conviction information about prosecutor Bruce Hegyi’s post-sentencing assistance to cooperator Winston Gittens.
Disclosures showed Hegyi assisted Gittens with immigration counsel, visited him in ICE custody, made small deposits to his inmate account, arranged an ICE hearing (which led to release), helped Gittens after release (including having him live at Hegyi’s home from 2015–2017), and requested FBI source payments for cooperators.
On June 16, 2016 (after appeals and long after trial), Hegyi called the district judge to ask if the judge would serve as an employment reference; during the call Hegyi described helping Gittens and the judge allegedly commended Hegyi and said he would "step Gittens back if necessary." The conversation is the basis for a recusal motion.
Defendants moved to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455 (grounds: impartiality might reasonably be questioned; judge’s personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts; judge expressed opinion on merits). The court denied the motion without prejudice, allowing renewal if the record later develops.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned (§ 455(a))	Hegyi’s call and the judge’s complimentary remark create an appearance of extrajudicial bias favoring a key witness	The call occurred years after the case; judge’s comment was a social compliment and included a warning to enforce conditions—no appearance of bias to a reasonable informed observer	Denied: objective, informed observer would not reasonably question impartiality given context and timing
Whether judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts (§ 455(b)(1))	The judge heard Hegyi describe interactions with Gittens and may know facts relevant to promised benefits, so judge should recuse	Hegyi’s call, as described, relayed post-sentencing assistance and did not concern promises made before or during trial; no present factual dispute where judge has personal knowledge	Denied: no clear evidence judge has personal knowledge of any disputed facts; motion speculative at this stage
Whether judge expressed opinion on merits in prior governmental employment (§ 455(b)(3))	The judge’s comment commending Hegyi amounts to an expressed opinion relevant to these § 2255 proceedings	The remark was not an opinion on the merits of any § 2255 claim and did not address credibility about trial-period conduct	Denied: no expression of opinion on merits of the particular case

United States v. Pollard, 959 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir.) (recusal motions should not be lightly granted)
Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir.) (standard: whether a reasonable and informed observer would question the judge’s impartiality)
Sao Paulo State of Federative Republic of Brazil v. American Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonable observer is fully informed)
Roberts v. Bailar, 625 F.2d 125 (6th Cir.) (judge’s personal vouching for a witness can destroy appearance of impartiality)
United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732 (11th Cir.) (examples of judges failing to recuse where reasonable observer would doubt impartiality)
In re Mohammad, 866 F.3d 473 (D.C. Cir.) (judicial statements expressing guilt warranted disqualification in analogous military-commission context)