"Iowa's Code of Judicial Conduct provides that [a] judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." (See State v. Shanahan, No. 16-1341, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2017); State v. Millsap (2005) 704 N.W.2d 426, 432; Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct canon 3(C)(1).)
“A judge's impartiality might be questioned where the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” (See id.)
“But mere allegations are insufficient; actual prejudice must be shown by the party seeking recusal before a recusal is necessary.” (See id.)
"Judicial predilection or an attitude of mind resulting from the facts learned by the judge from the judge's participation in the case is not a disqualifying factor.” (See id.)
“Rather, [o]nly personal bias or prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source constitutes a disqualifying factor." (See id.)
Chapter 51 of the Iowa Court Rules contains the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct. Specifically, Rule 51:2.11 governs disqualification.
“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances: … (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.” (See Iowa Code. Jud. Cond. 51:2.11(A)(1).)
“A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.” (See Iowa Code. Jud. Cond. 51:2.2.)
“On appeal, we review the judge's denial of a motion for recusal for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the judge ‘acted unreasonably’ or based its decision ‘on untenable grounds,’ meaning the ground was not supported by substantial evidence or was based on an erroneous application of the law.” (See State v. Shanahan, No. 16-1341, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2017); State v. Millsap (2005) 704 N.W.2d 426, 432.)
It is well settled that “a party seeking recusal of a judge has the burden of showing grounds for the recusal.” (See Iowa Dep't of Revenue v. Yuska (2012) 821 N.W.2d 779; Campbell v. Quad Cities Times (1996) 547 N.W.2d 608, 611.)
It is also well settled that “generally, however, past judicial encounters with a judge provide no basis for recusal by the judge. Only personal bias or prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source constitutes a disqualifying factor.” (See Iowa Dep't of Revenue v. Yuska (2012) 821 N.W.2d 779; State v. Millsap (2005) 704 N.W.2d 426, 432; State v. Smith (1979) 282 N.W.2d 138, 142.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
