From the Herald-Leader:
Supreme Court justice may recuse himself from water case
by Andy Mead, Herald-Leader, 9/8/2005
FRANKFORT -- His role in Lexington’s last mayor’s race is causing Kentucky Supreme Court Justice John Roach to consider stepping aside if the court ultimately decides whether the city will have a referendum on condemning the water company.Roach was campaign manager for Scott Crosbie in the 2002 race, and spoke against condemnation when he filled in for the candidate.
In a hearing today that he called to talk about potential conflicts, Roach pointed out that the issue that might face the court -- the legality and timing of a referendum on condemnation -- was not the same as deciding if the city should go to court to forcibly acquire Kentucky American.
“My question is does the public see it differently,” he said.
Roach said he spent the Labor Day weekend thinking about possible conflicts, and it was the Crosbie campaign that he thought about the most.
He said he will make a decision by Thursday, when the seven justices will start considering whether to take the referendum case from the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Roach mentioned two other conflicts . . . . [click here for rest of story]HERE ARE THE CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT:
CANON 1
A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
CANON 2
A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities.
CANON 3
A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
CANON 4
A judge shall so conduct the judge's extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
CANON 5
A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.
- HERE IS THE RULE ON DISQUALIFICATION
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
Commentary
Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. For example, if a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law firm, the judge would be disqualified from any matters in which that law firm appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after disclosure by the judge.
A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.
By decisional law, the rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary statute, or might be the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In the latter case, the judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and use reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable.
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
* * *
(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material witness concerning it;
].
Comments