Motion to Recuse Judge in Vermont

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Recuse Judge

“The Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” (See A.O. 10, Canon 3E(1); Ainsworth v. Chandler (2014) 107 A.3d 905, 910.)

“Including but not limited to instances where . . . he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding . . . ." (See Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3C(1)(a), 12 V.S.A. App. VIII, A.O. 10; In re T. L. S (1984) 144 Vt. 536, 542.)

“The Code is binding on anyone, whether or not a lawyer, who is an officer of the judicial system and who performs judicial functions." (See Velardo v. Ovitt (2007) 182 Vt. 180, 184.)

“It then gives a nonexhaustive list of instances in which recusal is required. One such instance is when a person within the fourth degree of relationship to the judge is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director or trustee of a party, is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding, or is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding." (See Canon 3E(1)(d)(i), (ii), (iv); Velardo v. Ovitt (2007) 182 Vt. 180, 184.)

“Judges are accorded a presumption of honesty and integrity, with [the] burden on the moving party to show otherwise in the circumstances of the case.” (See Ball v. Melsur Corp. (1993)161 Vt. 35, 39, 633 A.2d 705, 709.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Recuse Judge

“Recusal is normally a decision to be made by the particular judge.” (See Daitchman v. Daitchman (1984) 145 Vt. 145, 146-47, 483 A.2d 270, 271; Richard v. Richard (1985) 146 Vt. 286, 287.)

“The essence of bias is a personal prejudice against a party.” (See State v. Jurras (1923) 97 Vt. 276, 280, 122 A. 589, 590.)

“Whether a judge is disqualified by prejudice is a question of fact, which must be clearly established by the record.” (See DeGrace v. DeGrace (1986) 147 Vt. 466, 469, 520 A.2d 987, 989.)

“A party seeking disqualification must show that the judge could not, or did not, pass upon the facts of [the] case without bias or prejudice." (See Daitchman v. Daitchman (1984) 145 Vt. 145, 147, 483 A.2d 270, 271; Leonard v. Willcox (1928) 101 Vt. 195, 215, 142 A. 762, 770; State v. Daudelin (1989) 151 Vt. 214, 216.)

“A judge is accorded a presumption of honesty and integrity, and to overcome this presumption, a party must make a clear and affirmative showing of bias or prejudice.” (See State v. Piquette, SUPREME COURT No. 2014-476, at *2 (Vt. Nov. 19, 2015)

“When partiality is claimed because of personal bias, such bias or prejudice must be affirmatively shown by the party moving for recusal.” (See In re T. L. S (1984) 144 Vt. 536, 542.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Recuse Judge

“A judge must disqualify himself whenever a doubt of impartiality would exist in the mind of a reasonable disinterested observer.” (See Code of Judicial Conduct, A.O. 10, Canon 3(C)(1); Richard v. Richard (1985) 146 Vt. 286, 288, 501 A.2d 1190, 1191.)

“However, motions that lack foundation should be denied.” (See id.)  

“To maintain a colorable claim of judicial disqualification, the moving party must affirmatively and clearly show bias or prejudice directed against him.” (See Cliche v. Fair (1984) 145 Vt. 258, 261-62, 487 A.2d 145, 148; State v. Carter (1990) 154 Vt. 646.)

“We will not disturb a decision regarding disqualification unless there has been an abuse of discretion, that is, if the record reveals no reasonable basis for the decision.” (See Ainsworth v. Chandler (2014) 107 A.3d 905, 910-11.)

“Abuse of discretion occurs when that discretion is exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable, or to an extent clearly unreasonable." (See In re Halnon (2002) 174 Vt. 514, 517; In re Gaines Farm Cmty. Solar, LLC, SUPREME COURT No. 2017-263, at *2 (Vt. Dec. 1, 2017).)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Recuse Judge

It is well settled that “a judge should not allow his family, social, or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment. He should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him.” (See In re Hill (1989) 152 Vt. 548, 564 n.8.)

It is also well settled that “although the ultimate test is whether the judge can decide the case impartially and without bias, a judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . . " (See Code of Judicial Conduct, 12 V.S.A., App. VIII, A.O. 10, Canon 3(C)(1) (Supp. 1985); Richard v. Richard (1985) 146 Vt. 286, 287-88.)